Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Food Stamp Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day in Obama's First Term

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
We're in a recession, what exactly do you expect?

Would you prefer people go hungry?

Why do neo-con websites get linked on ATS? Isn't this place supposed to deny ignorance?
edit on 23-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


SO, take more from some, to give to others.

My God, what has the world come to.

It is not the responsibility of the Govt to Feed people. People need to feed people and themselves.




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


So, your solution is to let them starve in the streets?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 





My problem with the food stamp program isn't that it exists. It's that it measures it's swelling numbers as success.


My problem with foodstamps is that it is ran by JP Morgan, for profit. It should be ran by the government alone, like it used to be.


In 2010, President Obama signed into law the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. The bill added $4.5 billion to child-nutrition programs over the next decade, put in place nutrition standards for school lunch programs and vending machines, and implemented training for the cafeteria workers who feed 31 million students a day through the National School Lunch and School Breakfast programs. It received bipartisan support, and was hailed as a compassionate victory for America’s poorest children.

The bill was also, however, a potentially good development for mega bank JP Morgan Chase. Why, you may be wondering, would one of the nation’s biggest banks benefit from a bill meant to feed poor children? A closer look at the legislation reveals the answer. The bill mandates that “all state agencies implement Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) systems by October 1, 2020” for those receiving money through the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program. And which company administers nearly half of all states’ EBT programs? You guessed it: JP Morgan Chase.

“This business is a very important business to JP Morgan,” Christopher Paton, the company’s managing director of treasury services, told Bloomberg News in 2011. “It’s an important business in terms of its size and scale. We also regard it as very important in the sense that we are delivering a very useful social function. We are a key part of this benefit delivery mechanism. Right now volumes have gone through the roof in the past couple of years or so … The good news from JP Morgan’s perspective is the infrastructure that we built has been able to cope with that increase in volume.”

Just how lucrative JP Morgan’s EBT state contracts are is hard to say, because total national data on EBT contracts are not reported. But thanks to a combination of public-records requests and contracts that are available online, here’s what we do know: 18 of the 24 states JP Morgan handles have been contracted to pay the bank up to $560,492,596.02 since 2004. Since 2007, Florida has been contracted to pay JP Morgan $90,351,202.22. Pennsylvania’s seven-year contract totaled $112,541,823.27. New York’s seven-year contract totaled $126,394,917.


www.thedailybeast.com...

FOOD STAMPS PROFITS : how JP Morgan gets rich with increased poverty
edit on 23-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by macman
 


So, your solution is to let them starve in the streets?


Oh, no, I much better like the idea that the Govt can and does reach into my paycheck and forcibly steal more money to give to others.

But, why work anymore, people seem to be just fine and happy with getting stuff for free, on the backs of others.

How much more is needed from my paycheck to make it so "People don't starve in the street"



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by macman
 


So, your solution is to let them starve in the streets?


Oh, no, I much better like the idea that the Govt can and does reach into my paycheck and forcibly steal more money to give to others.

But, why work anymore, people seem to be just fine and happy with getting stuff for free, on the backs of others.

How much more is needed from my paycheck to make it so "People don't starve in the street"



So your solution is to let people starve in the street.

Awesome mentality.

Funny how these people never complain about the military budget that is being taken out of their check to fuel the military industrial complex and murder people.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Lets turn the USA into a third world country. Woooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!



All in the name of fiscal conservatism!!
Power to the people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

edit on 23-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Interesting that you can't answer my straightforward question without sarcasm. At least have the guts to admit that your position is to let your fellow Americans starve before offering them a loaf of bread from your pantry.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle

So your solution is to let people starve in the street.

Oh, no, absolutely not.
Here, Govt, please take 70% of MY paycheck to give to others.
Oh, and please, from that 70% that is stolen from me, what percentage actually makes it to the person "In need". You know, after Govt has siphoned off what Govt needs.


Originally posted by WaterBottle
Awesome mentality.

So, you are for taking more from me, to give to others, thus driving me to get a second job, and possibly making it so I need to go on food stamps?
Oh, by all rational, your heart thinking, brain feeling mentality is awesomer.



Originally posted by WaterBottle
Funny how these people never complain about the military budget that is being taken out of their check to fuel the military industrial complex and murder people.


Maybe you should go and look at my past posts on the budget of the Govt, in relation to spending.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by macman
 


Interesting that you can't answer my straightforward question without sarcasm. At least have the guts to admit that your position is to let your fellow Americans starve before offering them a loaf of bread from your pantry.


Uhhhh.....I do give from my food pantry there High and Mighty Benevolent Heretic.
I give 10% of my income to charity. What do you give????

But, why should I do that?
The Govt steals more then that from my paycheck, that I earned, only to piss it away and give it to others.
The Govt is there to make sure no one goes hungry, gets a boo-boo or has to work.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Lets turn the USA into a third world country. Woooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!



All in the name of fiscal conservatism!!
Power to the people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

edit on 23-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


Yeah, ok.
So you use a picture from probably Africa, in some failed attempt to suggest that by not providing "everyone' food stamps, we will have that in the streets.

Ok then your seven degrees of Kevin Bacon, or Third World Nation fails.

But, you keep championing the Govt to take more and more from people, to give to others.

I can't wait till it gets to much for someone like you, and you start complaining that the same Govt that promises to take care of everyone, will still have to take from someone first.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by retirednature


~So we have around 30% of Americans deciding not to work or seek a job


i suspect for many it wasn't as much as a flippant as "deciding not to work or seek a job" sounds. but more GAVE UP trying to find work, becoming disheartened at the fact many jobs that are out there do not pay enough to actually LIVE ON



Maybe limit the duration in which people may receive food stamps?


only problem with that is that many of the people on food stamps DO HAVE JOBS, it's just that the pay is so poor that they NEED food stamps so they can actually afford food. others have legitimate health reasons that they can not work.

instead of limiting the time a person can be on food stamps, a much better idea that would achieve the same goal would be to INSURE that people can AFFORD to live off of what they can EARN at ONE JOB (full time job of course). as well as reversing the trend of companies using more and more PART TIME JOBS. a part time job should be filled by teenagers looking to make a bit of cash while in school, and retirees who need a little more income. NOT by people trying to raise a family.


Maybe limit the duration in which people may receive unemployment checks?


i think this is already the case


Maybe cut the ties between larger companies and/or corporations with the government, as in destroying all tax incentives?


i do like the idea about cutting ties between companies and corporations with the government. how about restructuring some of the tax incentives in such a way as to help employment and wages? say things like give an incentive to companies who maintain a 90% FULL TIME (with full time hours of at least 35 hours/week) employee workforce. also maybe a bit of a tax break for having all of their employees being paid more than enough where they DON'T NEED food stamps to supplement their income. perhaps even go so far as to make companies and corporations PAY for any food stamps their employees need. how about a tax break based on having a HIGH number of EMPLOYEES, (AGAIN MOSTLY FULL TIME) and LOWER PROFITS ( no[I] hiding profits with things like unnecessary renovations and such). even breaks for more equality between the pay scale of the "front line" workers and what the CEO's and higher management make. perhaps even a break for the spreading of a decent amount of a companies profits to the lower paid staff.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
The Govt steals more then that from my paycheck, that I earned, only to piss it away and give it to others.


"Others" being policemen, firemen, veterans, the elderly, children in public schools, national parks, roadways and the biggest "thief" of all, the military... Are these the "others" that are pissing away your money?




The Govt is there to make sure no one goes hungry, gets a boo-boo or has to work.


I can only assume that's a typo, or more confusing sarcasm. But this particular discussion no longer interests me. You go after ME, you lose me.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
"Others" being policemen, firemen, veterans, the elderly, children in public schools, national parks, roadways and the biggest "thief" of all, the military... Are these the "others" that are pissing away your money?


We are talking about food stamps, not public emergency services, veterans, public schools and so on.
Nice deflection.
But, it is nice to see the absolute failure of the Public schools, emergency services are being cut back, veterans are not exactly being treated by the best methods, national parks are running at half or so and the Military is still not exactly operating under a great budget either.
So, YES. The Govt is pissing away most of the revenue it steals from people.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I can only assume that's a typo, or more confusing sarcasm. But this particular discussion no longer interests me. You go after ME, you lose me.

Ah......Me so sad. You don't like being attacked, but don't mind attacking me and having the Govt attack me by stealing more of MY paycheck.

Just like most Liberals. Run away. Maybe the Govt will step in and make things right.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
[SNIP]
Unless you're suggesting that a conservative president would have regulated the pay gap.
I don't think you're saying that.


reply to post by burdman30ott6
 



Originally posted by burdman30ott6
In fact, Obama's policies have largely centered around expanding the gap even further.


How's that? What policies?
edit on 1/23/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)


See, here's a fundamental philosphical difference between "Progressive" and "Conservative" attitudes towards income in general (Notice: I'm not using Democrat/Republican... the party titles are meaningless today. I'm talking about real political ethoses here.) Progressives focus first and foremost on the CEOs, then the managers, then the upper middle class, then the middle class, looking to lower the amount of income which they are "allowed" to keep through taxes, regulations, and policies. Conservatives are Laissez-faire for the most part, centering their attention on allowing people from all levels of personal wealth to keep more of what they earn and take a definite action-oriented, self motivated path towards wherever they wish to ultimately end up on the ladder. Progressive policies push the top down towards the middle, and the middle down towards the bottom... ultimately pushing the bottom all the way off the ladder where they can then be gathered up and buttressed up to the middle through government support and benefits. Conservatives may not do much buttressing or provide many supportive shoves... but neither are they ensuring that the ass of the guy above you on the ladder is going to get shoved downward into your face.

I showed the chart and named president names to mostly demonstrate that, as I previously said, the last Conservative president the US had was Reagan. The gap grew at a much slower rate with him at the helm. This was because the 80's were the last real, sustained growth period for the Middle Class in the US and yes, it was largely thanks to his policies and his abillity to pull the US out of the Carter recession pretty damn quickly... especially considering how long it seems to be taking Obama to do anything with the one we're still in right now.

Obama policies I'm talking about are things like Obamacare. The folks at the very bottom and very top of the ladder aren't going to see negative impacts from Obamacare. (Truth be known, both groups will see many benefits.) The middle class is the odd man out here and it will absolutely push them down the ladder as they will ultimately end up picking up the cost for themselves, paying for those below them to get free care, and pay higher prices everywhere to cover any profit losses by the corporate tier related to the bill. Obama's Federal Reserve has devalued the US dollar brutally, causing the dollar to buy a lot less for a lot more. We also see neverending unemployment, outrageous gas prices, policies geared towards breaking down development which kills middle class jobs, expnading environmental policies which kill jobs, and (though this may be a stretch) many feel pressed to do their firearm shopping now, before Obama has a chance to destroy that Right... all of these having the effect of further stressing already stressed budgets and pushing middle class people down the ladder. THAT is why the pay difference is so dramaticly increasing. You seem to be focusing on just the CEO pay, but you're viewing less than 1% of the equation by doing that. The more the middle class has to deal with inflation at the cash register and stagnation of their payroll, the further downward the 99%'s income levels spiral and the greater the gap becomes.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Well said.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Reagan raised taxes, nearly tripled the deficit, GREW the federal government, gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants and when he cut taxes, unemployment grew to over 10%. I don't know that I would consider him a conservative president.

Source

In any case, we're living in very different times than Reagan times.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Reagan raised taxes, nearly tripled the deficit, GREW the federal government, gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants and when he cut taxes, unemployment grew to over 10%. I don't know that I would consider him a conservative president.


Let's look at these a bit deeper.
In his first year in office, Reagan orchestrated the largest tax cut in the country's history, slashing rates across the board. After that he focused on eliminating loopholes, deductions, and tax evasion shenanigans. Technically, closure of loopholes and elimination of deductions could be considered a "tax increase", but the end result was that the majority of working Americans saw a lower tax burden afterward and (for a time at least, until Congress managed to re-jack things up) a fairly simple progressive tax structure. Reagan DID raise payroll taxes to fund Social Security, but thanks to years of federal theft from the fund it would have long ago been stone cold broke without those changes.

TEFRA

This agreement never materialized in regards to the spending cuts, but it did materialize in regards to tax cuts. I'm open to debating the cause of TEFRA's failure, particularly in regards to the strategy the Democrat led Congress adopted of continuation of Carter's wide swath spending cuts focusing on the military versus Reagan's stance that military spending should NOT be cut while the USSR was continuing to spend like wildfire on their defense budgets. It cost the United States roughly $3 Trillion to break the spine of the Soviet Union and cast them deep into the Peña Dura prison pit. In stark contrast, the USA has dumped nearly that much into Iraq and Afghanistan and has little more than a handfull of magic beans to show for it.

Amnesty... you know, this issue is one of those things that is painfully simple when you really get down to it, yet everyone makes it into this huge complicated mess for some reason. Reagan granted amnesty to grandfathered illegals, which they had to apply for, mind you. The portion of the bill which mattered more involved dramatic increases to border security and stiff penalties to employers of undocumented workers. The ACLU (fighting for the workers) and the US Chamber of Commerce (fighting for employers) successfully convinced the Democrat controlled committee to remove those provisions from the bill. That is the primary reason we continue to deal with the ever increasing illegal immigration situation in America. Amnesty is a paper tiger argument to shield people from the real points of contention: employment documentation and the impact increased "REAL" border security will have on the DEA's income stream.

Unemployment... *sigh* This today is apples to oranges. Bill Clinton passed a law in the 90s which redefined the manner in which unemployment is calculated and reported. In the 80s, unemployment was unemployment. A 10.2% unemployment rate in 1982 would be roughly 5.6% U3 rate today. Regardless, the fact remains that Reagan dealt with high unemployment for his era... BUT, by the end of his presidency the average had worked its way down to around 6%. After his second year in office, the rate tracked downward to "normal" unemployment and stayed there for the remainder. 4 years of Jimmy Carter malaise on the heels of 3+ years of Gerald Ford's brilliance turned around in 2 years... not bad, all things considered. Again, to bring it back to present, we are 4+ years in and are still above the 8% figure which was used as a glass ceiling number to pass a stimulus package.



In any case, we're living in very different times than Reagan times.


And how!



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
this just popped up on my facebook today, i think it fits this thread rather well, especially for those wanting to do away or limit the time people can get food stamps. a group i never really thought of that apparently are big users of food stamps, and is it a crock of dung that this group in particular has the NEED to rely on "handouts" like food stamps, it makes me rather ill.
if ANYONE should not have to rely on food stamps it is MILITARY PERSONNEL, those who constantly put their lives on the line, even when they might not agree to the government's policies.





CINDY WILLIAMS was appointed by Obama as an Assistant Director for NATIONAL SECURITY in the Congressional Budget Office..... This is an Airman's response to Cindy Williams' editorial piece in the Washington Post about MILITARY PAY, it should be printed in all newspapers across America . Cindy William wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year citing that she stated a 13% wage increase was more than they deserve. A young airman from HillAFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this. "Ms Williams: I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GI's earn enough" and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest earnings statement I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes per month. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through the calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after. I work in the Air Force Network Control Center where I am part of the team responsible for a 5,000 host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for "Network Technicians" in the Washington , D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience in my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum............ I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions. Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces. Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off of WIC and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN ; I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience." As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone. Obviously they've been squandering the "vast" piles of cash the government has been giving them. Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites.. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a foxhole, shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE's (meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor. Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't be nearly long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your open piece. But, tomorrow from KABUL , I will defend to the death your right to say it. You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment right and every other right you cherish...On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective noses at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies. And you, Ms.. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve?” A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND SHOW YOUR SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN. If you get this more than once, feel honored that you know more than one person who supports our military and appreciates what they do.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by generik
 


i apologize for the long quote above but i don't know how to link Facebook status type stuff



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Wah wah wah food stamp people are stealing my money
Taxes are lower now then when Clinton was in office. Republicans are always crying and afraid someones gonna get something they don't have. I'm sure the millions of people on food stamps are thrilled to live in the richest country on earth as second class citizens. I know a lot of people on food stamps and their not happy that they can't make ends meet. Lets talk about all of the jobs that were farmed out over seas by the 1% to people making $0.50 an hour and how the rich hide their money offshore. It must be nice to live in America and not have to contribute.

edit on 24-1-2013 by wantsome because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join