Food Stamp Use Up 1.44 million in Just One Month

reply to post by macman


Always....people fear...people hate....and they are always willing to let go of something to make those "bad" things go away.

I wish....oh man I wish...people looked in their hearts and not in their pockets....we have the capacity to be wonderful creatures...but we don't. I will wonder...till the stars burn out...and never understand this. We can be beautiful...and we can be sooo ugly...why we choose one over the other is...well...something I cannot comprehend. As stated above....I DO believe...the kingdom of heaven...perfection...love....is within men....but why we do not seek it is something I will never understand. We are born to be free...just let us be free....and we...the ants...will move mountains.

reply to post by beezzer

What have we accomplished here?

We were supposed to accomplish something?

Now you tell me.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by beezzer

 

What have we accomplished here?

We were supposed to accomplish something?

Now you tell me.

edit on 12-12-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

Provide coherent analysis of the thread topic.



Or call posters poo-poo heads.

Either one.

reply to post by beezzer

Seems to me that the second option has been covered.

More or less.

reply to post by winterkill


We are losing more than that with all the jobs sent over seas.

Originally posted by beezzer
Golly-gee-goodness-gravyboat!
(sorry about the swear)

29 pages?

For what?

One side: The government is awesome. They are taking care of people!

Other side: Of course! The government wants compliant drones and slaves and people beholding to it!

One side: Nuh-uh!

Other side: Uh-huh.

What have we accomplished here?

I have stopped responding to this thread for obvious reasons. Some people are just too childish to hold a discussion with.

I had to respond to this though, it is quite hilarious.

You can sum up this entire thread to this post. Except there is a middle ground that the government is not taking the best care of people, and also wants compliant slaves/drones. Except it is not the government that wants that, it is the rich people who control the government that want that. Other than that I give you 5 laughing emoticons for this post.

reply to post by NarrowGate




You have stopped responding, yet respond.

Sure sure.

So the question then stands...
Is the government giving out food stamps because

a) poor people need to be fed
b) the rich are afraid of the riots
c) a little from column a and b
d) none of the above
e) something I had not considered

and why

By the way, maybe we should all call up the salvation army to donate a toy this year.
(Or the food bank, I'm not biased)

Originally posted by Starchildren
I agree with you, I have seen people who wear designer jeans and hoodies, with nice shoes and phones at the welfare office. They drive better cars than I do. I wonder how in the world they get any assistance. It truly boggles the mind. I was told if my hours increase at all, I must report it and they will re-adjust my food stamps. Okay fine, and I will be honest of course and do that, but they'll just take $100 off, and I'll still be in dire straits. The system is becoming so that no one gets ahead. I want to get ahead. This is NOT the life I had planned out for me or my family. And I did plan ahead. Somehow, I failed. I didn't get on top and become wealthy.

In your other post you mention family vacations. I so related to that. My daughter is ten and we have never taken a family trip. It's hard to explain to your kid that wants to go to Disney someday that this may never happen in her childhood. Not with the way things are going. My grand parents and parents must have been doing really well because every year they took trips somewhere. My parents always loaded us up in the car every summer and we had wonderful vacations. But life is not like that anymore. Not when I can barely afford gas for the week.

That is one of the most frustrating things about the entire system; people that are trying, and in real need, can't get help, and are penalized for trying (more income, less help), but others somehow afford all sorts of nice things, and get tons more help. Clearly, something needs to change! it's like those running the show don't care about the cheats, and only want to see the facts from the honest people. I don't understand that.....

My kids, so far, haven't asked about a vacation. Of course, when they hear we can't afford this, or that, or the other all the time, I guess they figured out there would be no point. We are way worse off the last few years (yes, since 2008), and the pay hasn't lowered. Instead, EVERYTHING costs more. Gas, food, utilities, everything. Over 20 years of military service, and we have less every day to get by. It really makes me sick when people claim this clown in the White House has made things better. I don't know anyone that's better off! NO ONE. This coming year, we only get a 1.7% "pay raise". 2012, it was 1.6%. That doesn't even come close to keeping up with all the increased costs. It's about like docking the pay, really. 2011, it was 1.4%. 2008, under Bush, it was 3.5%. Makes a HUGE difference. Of course, in January of 2008, I could buy gas locally for $1.499! Still more than double that now!

We didn't have to plan this sort of problem; someone else decided to plan to screw us over.

Originally posted by sirhumperdink

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Get some real data. According to this link - link - Feed the Children has fed a whopping 350,000 children, all on private donations, in foreign countries. They have also provided food and other supplies to people n the United States. That is ONE charity. There are many. Add them all up, and you would be stunned what they can do, and in fact, have done. You state things as though they are facts, and you offer not a single shred of evidence.

edit on 11-12-2012 by Thepump because: (no reason given)

"fed a whopping 350,000" thats a long way from 47 million and fed does not mean feed ....one of these is past tense and would indicate an irregular event (for the span of a given time period which could be week a month a year ten years.. it doesnt say... but in the context of the article we can assume one year)
how much money was donated to achieve these ends? would it be logical to assume a larger entity making larger purchases could get a better deal on the food?
and regardless of wether its charity or government it needs to be paid for somehow
and if your argument is that government is wasteful and makes unfair or unreasonable decisions then shouldnt the priority be to reform government (which would need to be done anyway as it has much farther reaching impacts) and use its infrastructure and leverage in negotiating deals to do the job better than smaller entities? (maybe raise taxes on business operating overseas and have tax breaks for those that operate domestically.... maybe have a more reasonable minimum wage..... you know help create jobs that can actually support the populace and increase overall production and reduce the amount of aid that is necessary)
why are you addressing symptoms while ignoring the disease?


That is ONE charity, out of a great many charities across the country. If you want total numbers, look them all up; I have other things to do with my time. When donations are made this way, food IS bought in bulk, at a better price.

And, no, the priority should be to get the government out of things that are not its concern. That's step one. Federally-run programs tend to be bureaucratic disasters, with far too much spending, tons of paperwork, and even more corruption. If such a charity is needed, let it be at a state level. Smaller, local, and far easier to oversee. Now, tax breaks for businesses operating locally would be a great thing, but don't hold your breath. The guy in charge right now could rather see them all fail.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by macman

 

ummmm, designed to do ?? hardly ... more like manipulated to do.
read again, that is NOT what the Feds were designed to do.

correct, no military, no tax-payer provided paycheck ... then again, according to you, all he had to do was breathe and have a pulse, so, why bother joining the service ??
he was gonna get a taxpayer provided paycheck either way, right ?

sounds as though he did but you know what ?
i don't know him any more than i know you so we could both be wrong.

words on a screen, my friend, words on a screen, nothing more.

no, skills differ, duties don't.
and, your inability to distinguish between the obvious amazes me.

And your point is what?

still wishing for your instruction on how to obtain one of those "paychecks for breathing and having a pulse".
i already know how the military does it.

nice try but i don't qualify ... too old, or too young, kids grown, no assets, wrong color ... i guess i'm just SOL, thanks anyway.
don't worry though, MY taxes will keep supplying all the others

Actually, you don't have a clue what the military does to earn the ridiculously small paychecks they receive. Not a single clue.

Let's start near the beginning, to make this simple for you. I guess you never learned the preamble to the Constitution in school, so I will share something you seem to be missing. That reads as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

With me so far? Note, please, the part that states, "provide for the common defence" (the spelling in the original). The common defense....gee, what do you think that means? Do you think that you would have a free country without the service and protection provided by the military? If you really think that, then you need to think again.

Now, before you go off half-cocked, the "general welfare" does NOT refer to food stamps and welfare checks. It doesn't refer to a nanny state. That means that they can spend to support the necessary structures of the government.

As for skills and duties, those both differ greatly, and if you don't know that, then you don't know anything at all about the military. Service members have a wide variety of training, and a wide variety of duties, based on their job. Same as for any business.

Now, instead of attacking people that hold a valid job, that happens to be government-paid, how about addressing the fact that the current administration seems determined to drive everyone but the wealthy like himself into serfdom?

Originally posted by Honor93
*snip*
i wonder, when was the last time you got along and fed yourself for $700 per Month, not per week like service members get.

What service people do you think get $700 a week for food? I can assure you that no one in the United States military gets that!!! I think, before you post anything more about the military, you should do some actual research. Keep in mind, some of us are military, or military family. In my case, veteran and family member now. I KNOW when I see total BS posted about the military. $700 a week.....well, gee, guess we better go apply for 20+ years of back pay on that one! (Towels for the dripping sarcasm located to the right)

FYI, in case you didn't do the math, your $700 a week claim would add up to only a few thousand more than we make in an entire YEAR. Reality check!

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by beezzer

 

how did the government put people on food stamps?
by not taxing the living hell out of any company that outsources jobs? (because anytime a bill comes forward to raise taxes on companies operating overseas the republicans filibuster and refuse to allow a vote on the matter)
what?
are you going to suggest our workforce should be competing with china or africa for jobs? (i would like to see what our economy looks like when people are getting paid $2 a day)
i would like to hear how you would solve this dilemma
to get people off of assistance you need to provide them with jobs that pay a living wage so how are you going to increase the number of jobs in this country?

Actually, you have that a bit backwards. The government taxed the businesses so heavily they could not afford to operate here, so they moved to outsourcing. Every time a recommendation comes forward to stop taxing businesses to death, or to elsewhere, the Democrats throw a fit.

On the other hand, with real tax breaks, businesses can afford to hire more people, and breaks that encourage local hiring would mean more jobs here at home. Then all those newly employed (or better paid) workers would have more money to spend, and the economy would improve.

When the government is set on making businesses fail, and making everything cost more, people lose jobs, and don't have as much to spend. This isn't rocket science.