Food Stamp Recipients Outnumber Populations of 24 States Combined

page: 10
34
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Yes, it is your job to care for those who paved the way for you. He's spent 50 years paying taxes that gave you public schools, clean water, decent roads, police, firefighters, etc. It absolutely is your responsibility.

That's the thing that people like you miss all the time. You are not an island, you live in a society, and no you did not do it all by yourself.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
If low income earners try to fight for higher wages, they are evil communists. If they are on foot stamps, they are lazy slobs that cost me money. What the heck...



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


No, you are wrong on many levels. It is NOT my responsibility to care for you regardless of what you have done. It is your families responsibility. You know, the people who actually care about you.

I don't need the government to take care of me, or anyone for that matter. I don't expect you to. I do expect my family too because i would be doing the same for them.

Learn some independence. I don't owe you anything other than what i want to owe you.
edit on 24-11-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MisterMarbles
 


I've been very clear and to the point on any issues I may have and opinions related to the OP.

Obama policies will only increase foodstamp usage.

I've also stated that I would love to be proven wrong.

It is called an "aver". An assertion to prove a point. Stay on topic.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Paschar0
 


the worst part is that these food stamps are making Americans fatter and more unhealthy costing us even more in free medicare. my buddy works as a checker at one of these big food places, and he is disgusted buy all the fat slobby people coming through paying with food stamps, buying chips, cookies and soda in bulk amounts. if i was able to get food stamps i would go to the local markets and buy fresh more expensive foods(all while supporting the local economy) I hope that that one day these fat American slobs fall over in a suger coma from all the bullsnip food they buy with there free money.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I always wondered about realistic scenarios for gun confiscation. If they cause or exploit starvation and government dependence how long until we see food for guns programs? Do these already exist? I have not looked. Not that it would be so widespread as to account for all guns but I would imagine a lot of starving people would trade in their guns, especially if ammo and such are unaffordable or unavailable in some type of SHTF scenario. Something to consider.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by orbitbaby
I have a question. Not trying to be a smart*ss. I'm no economist I don't understand
how some of this works. But if people are losing their jobs left and right, partially due
to so many jobs being outsourced overseas and partially because of what's been done
to our economy, the FEDS printing into infinity, etc., then what do you think a better
answer is? I'm not saying foodstamps are a good answer either. Definitely not long
term. Just wondering what you think a better answer is for these people. What do you
think they should do instead?


Apparently the originator of this thread thinks the triple amputee vets who get a few hundred dollars a month as a disability pension should starve to death. Or maybe the single foster mother who takes in 9 abused children should let them starve. Or maybe he's just some cowardly troll, who would neither fight for his country nor help its neglected children, while he sits in mommy's dark, dank basement reading Ayn Rand and hating anyone "not like him."



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MisterMarbles

Originally posted by Skyfloating

The "blaming the rich" is just as pointless as "blaming the poor". Those are the voices of partisan ideology and wont do anything to think up, propose and deliver solutions to the overall problem.



I'm not exclusively blaming the rich. They are certainly a factor. The "blame" is impossible to assign to only one group. Many groups are partially to blame. However, the uber rich could provide some real solutions, but so few even try because they really want to advance from a $500million net worth to Billionaire status.

If I had a net worth of $10million, I'd gladly donate 50%-75% of my future earnings to help out people in need. You could even call it taxes and I'd gladly pay it.


Taxing wealth rather than income is the answer. Start the tax at $5 million and 5% annually. So if you have $10 million you would pay $250,000 annually (5 mil x 5%). The money you have left will likely make you more than the taxes you pay each year, so you are still have a good chance of growing your wealth and as such giving back more and more each year to your country. There would still be no limit on income or wealth.

if the wealth of the US and it's citizens is $100 trillion and half of that is held above the threshold it would mean $2.5 trillion in taxes annually, enough to cover our spending.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


So, it's my responsibility to ensure your survival? Just wondering.

I know that sounds harsh, though, that is what family is for. You take care of each other.

---

You should also be able to rely on me as a NEIGHBOR, that i will help you if at all possible. However, when the government starts making me, i start getting a problem.
edit on 24-11-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


What if someone has no family? Are you saying that they deserve to rot if the neighbors are not willing or are unable to help them? I think it's better to have a government that is willing to help those who are unable to help themselves in order to prevent them from suffering in the streets or, most likely, killing everyone who has more than them just to get a bite to eat.

I was that poor kid who didn't have family to support me and I decided that going to college to get an "education" in order for one of those big businesses to give me a chance was a better idea than to rely on the government. It is possible to teach people how to help themselves but what if they have nobody to teach them? Then what do you propose?

Look at it this way:

We can either give them food or we can let them harm others and put them in jail... Either way, it's gonna cost ya.

edit on 24-11-2012 by Anundeniabletruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


No, you are wrong on many levels. It is NOT my responsibility to care for you regardless of what you have done. It is your families responsibility. You know, the people who actually care about you.


Actually, yes, it is. You choose to live in a society where the expectation is that we take care of each other, which because of people like you has to be enforced by law. If you want to stop paying into the basic social system, feel free to go live in a country where it doesn't exist. But don't be surprised when someone kills you for what you own.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 

Since the government MADE ME by taking MY money all these years I will make a deal with you. Get them to give me back what is OWED me. After that you will not be hearing from me but until I receive back what was taken from me you and the others who live in this country have a deal to complete. Just as a corporation makes a contract this society made one to its workers to return to them what they put in.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 

Then you should not be part of this society. In this country people are supposed to pay their debts. If you want me out pay me what is owed, what I PUT IN. Otherwise it is YOU SIR who is the freeloader living off MY hard work. Funny how that works is it not?



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl


How many food stamp recipients work?



Some 70% of households that relied on food stamps last year had no earned income, a new report shows.



Most Food Stamp Recipients Have No Earned Income


I think you should not have been selective in providing information:


Nearly 21% of households on food stamps also received Supplemental Security Income, assistance for the aged and blind. Some 21.4% received Social Security benefits. Just 8% of households also received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the cash welfare program.

But some 20% of households had no cash income of any kind last year, up from 15% in 2007, the year the recession began, and up from 7% in 1990.

That’s partly because most household heads who were receiving food stamps were also out of work. Just 21.8% of them had jobs in 2010, while 19.8% were jobless and looking for work.

More than half of household heads who received food stamps, 51.1%, weren’t in the labor force and weren’t searching for work. Labor-force dropouts have been a particular concern for economists, who worry their lost potential damages economic output. Those who drop out of the work force often turn to other government programs, such as Social Security disability, which is costly.


–Food stamps may be emerging as a lifeline for families after their unemployment insurance expired. Just 6.7% of households who received food stamps were getting jobless benefits.

– Nearly half of all food-stamp recipients, 47%, were children under the age of 18. Another 8% of recipients were age 60 or older.

– Whites made up the largest share of food stamp households, 35.7%. Some 22% of households receiving food stamps were counted as African American and 10% were Hispanic.

–U.S. born citizens made up the majority, 94%, of food stamp households.
blogs.wsj.com...



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer



I've been very clear and to the point on any issues I may have and opinions related to the OP.


According to you. Has it ever occurred to you that you don't have firm grasp of reality? I don't think it has.


Obama policies will only increase foodstamp usage.


If so, then, so what? Chaos? Double dip recession? Country wide poverty except for the 1%?


I've also stated that I would love to be proven wrong.


His policies may increase foodstamp usage, but this is not a prime indicator of lack of fiscal progress for the country as a whole, so you being right or wrong about this trivial point is predictably irrelevant.


It is called an "aver". An assertion to prove a point. Stay on topic.


If I deviate from the topic, the moderators will say so. Until then, try to actually prove a point without resorting to speculation.
edit on 11/24/2012 by MisterMarbles because: Mothra attack



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Theophorus
I know that here in Colorado if you are a snap recipient you must do a community service or volunteer 26 hours a month. A family of four will receive 680 dollars a month for food. this would be equal to about $26.00 an hour if one was to get paid for volunteering.Cant remember the last time i ever earned 26 dollars an hour. Not a bad gig at all
edit on 24-11-2012 by Theophorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-11-2012 by Theophorus because: (no reason given)


How did your math determine this figure. if a person worked 40 hours a week that would equal 160 hours a month. $680 divided by 160 hours equals $4.25 an hour. Please tell me your job does not involve math.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Paschar0
 


I fully agree with your statement, the key is balance.

If no help was provided to anyone, even those that truly need it, things would get really bad really fast.
At the same time, if help is handed out to anyone who asks there is no motivation to actually earn a living.

I dont know the solution, but we cant continue on as it is now. Throwing money at the problem is only making it worse. There needs to be a middle ground solution where those that really need help are supported, and those that can support themselves are motivated to do so.

Its not an easy problem, so the solution is not going to be easy either.

DC



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FreebirdGirl
 


Actually, I added that info, if you check.

Second, as another poster stated, the direct link to the info, is more valuable.






posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Anundeniabletruth
 

You miss my point as well. If I invested money with a contract that states I can only collect when at a certain age or under certain conditions and then when that time occurs the shareholders say no, we got where we are off your money but we don't want to pay you so tough I could go to court. The citizenry of this country are the shareholders. Social Security and Medicare are the contracts that money has been taken from us for. Give us back our money and we will leave you alone. We just want what we PAYED for. In case you have not noticed Social Security and Medicare are seperate taxes.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join