If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(My Fox Phoenix)   Phoenix mayor lives off food stamp budget for a week, finds out his actions have consequences to people other than him. "Occasionally I'd have a cup of coffee and skip a meal in order to make it through"   (myfoxphoenix.com) divider line 227
    More: Obvious, Arizona Attorney General, food stamps, Reference Daily Intake, Navajo Nation, photo showing  
•       •       •

3792 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Sep 2012 at 1:39 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



227 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-25 03:35:03 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: From what I've seen, most of the moochers and parasites could stand to lose a few pounds anyway.

I don't think Anne Romney is fat.


Stay at home mothers are parasites? Nifty.
 
2012-09-25 03:35:38 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Silly Jesus: HotWingConspiracy: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

But I thought President Fart was keeping everyone from getting jobs? What happened to all of that?

You're way off message here.

No, he's just handing out Obama bucks. It's easier to walk to the mail box than it is to ride the bus to a job.

I don't even know what the fark that means.


Me neither.
 
2012-09-25 03:36:30 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: I alone am best: doloresonthedottedline: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Except to buy in bulk, you have to have a way to get it home. I can't legally drive because I have narcolepsy. I walk to the store. I cannot carry a 50 lb bag of rice home walking, and most of the time I can't afford bus fare for trips like that (definitely not cab fare).

They invented these things back in the day. They are called wagons. Check craigslist.

Assuming you mean the rolly carts, I live in the historic district of Savannah. I'd rather live on ramen than try to roll a cart on the brick streets and sidewalks. I twist my ankle several times a week, last thing I need is a cart with all my groceries bouncing all over, breaking shiat and spilling into the road.

If you mean a horse and buggy, I don't have access to stables.

If you mean a red wagon, I.. Hmm. I'm not sure how that would work in Kroger. Or on the bricks. Or on all the things I'd have to lift it over to get it inside the gate at my apartment and get it either in and out of the basement storage or up to the third story where my kitchen is


How about not living in such a stupid / inconvenient location?
 
2012-09-25 03:38:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: From what I've seen, most of the moochers and parasites could stand to lose a few pounds anyway.

I don't think Anne Romney is fat.

Stay at home mothers are parasites? Nifty.


Mitt Romney thinks so.
 
2012-09-25 03:39:30 PM  

BSABSVR: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

Well, he's not including the cell phones, Xboxes and rims that Fark informs me are attached to every poor person at all times either.


Fark has to inform you of that? You don't get out much / read police blotters much do you?
 
2012-09-25 03:39:44 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: The funny thing is, I'm actually working on starting a business. Because just about any other job would be very difficult with narcolepsy.


Perfect job, sadly lost to automation;


Li'l Abner Loses Mattress Testing Job to Dummy
 
2012-09-25 03:42:26 PM  

hasty ambush: Nadie_AZ:

I keep thinking of people in legislatures who want to do away with many of these programs. How do you get those people to even remotely understand?

Because the programs are not working but the left is against reforming them even trying new ones. The only thing the left can argue is that we need to throw more money at them:

In FY 2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare, plus state contributions to federal programs, reached approx. $940 billion. The federal share will come to around $695 billion, or 74 percent, while state spending will be around $250 billion, or 26 percent.

Combined federal and state means-tested welfare is now the second-largest category of overall government spending in the nation. It is exceeded only by the combined cost of Social Security and Medicare. Welfare spending is greater than the cost of public education and is greater than spending on national defense.

There are 69 means-tested programs operated by the federal government provide a wide variety of benefits. They include:

•12 programs providing food aid;

•10 housing assistance programs;

•10 programs funding social services;

•9 educational assistance programs;

•8 programs providing cash assistance;

•8 vocational training programs;

•7 medical assistance programs;

•3 energy and utility assistance programs; and,

•2 child care and child development programs.

Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, unemployment insurance, and workmen's compensation are not considered means-tested aid and are not included in this list

Only 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor.

In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...


THIS
 
2012-09-25 03:59:07 PM  

hasty ambush: Because the programs are not working but the left is against reforming them even trying new ones. The only thing the left can argue is that we need to throw more money at them


And the only thing the right can argue is that we should get rid of them. So, which is worse, keeping broken programs that could be improved but still manage to help some people, or tossing them out altogether and giving a big "fark you" to the people that use those programs? It's like having a special needs child. The left is the parent who says, "I just don't know what to do!" The right is the parent who says "Child? I don't have a child" moves out of the house and files for divorce.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather go with the group that is somewhat (or even mostly) ineffectual at helping than the group that treats helping people as if it were the worst possible thing a human being could do with their time.
 
2012-09-25 04:00:15 PM  

Silly Jesus: BSABSVR: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

Well, he's not including the cell phones, Xboxes and rims that Fark informs me are attached to every poor person at all times either.

Fark has to inform you of that? You don't get out much / read police blotters much do you?


Yeah. I have better things to do that read the police blotter. Clearly that's a farking moral failing.

Try thinking before posting for a change.
 
2012-09-25 04:00:54 PM  

Silly Jesus: In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...

THIS



You mean you think that if this was proposed as an alternative, the answer wouldn't be

"No! Because SOCIALISM!"
?

/I wonder where the free 'means testing' would come from
 
2012-09-25 04:01:58 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: So he lost four pounds in a week on food stamps. Figure the average poor person starts out weighing about 200 pounds. If we give them food stamps for less than a year, the problem of poor people will go away.


Tell you what, bud, you go out and spend 29$ in stores less than an hour away. We'll count the calories and take away all that bad-for-you food like ramen or boxed dinners. You can eat what's left over for the rest of the week.

Wonder how 'spiced air' sounds for dinner?

/Poverty creates obesity because cheap food is shiat food. Correlation is not farking causation. Do not confuse them, even if this is backwards from how we normally think of it.
 
2012-09-25 04:07:37 PM  

Silly Jesus: I also have a lot of downtime at work.


Well I see we have some things in common, then ;)
 
2012-09-25 04:09:54 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: hasty ambush: Because the programs are not working but the left is against reforming them even trying new ones. The only thing the left can argue is that we need to throw more money at them

And the only thing the right can argue is that we should get rid of them. So, which is worse, keeping broken programs that could be improved but still manage to help some people, or tossing them out altogether and giving a big "fark you" to the people that use those programs? It's like having a special needs child. The left is the parent who says, "I just don't know what to do!" The right is the parent who says "Child? I don't have a child" moves out of the house and files for divorce.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather go with the group that is somewhat (or even mostly) ineffectual at helping than the group that treats helping people as if it were the worst possible thing a human being could do with their time.



How about we get rid of them and replace them with a Negative Income Tax policy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
 
2012-09-25 04:10:49 PM  

Silly Jesus: In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...

THIS



BTW, I find all the positions in that post highly suspect, but I dont have the time/desire to research it, However, ,(and I think it was said before) ending these programs without replacement, would do irreparable harm...and possibly overthrow the American way of life. All I ever hear is about moochers and parasites and fark you , I got mine.

What do you propose to put in these program's place?
 
2012-09-25 04:12:24 PM  

Madbassist1: Silly Jesus: In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...

THIS


BTW, I find all the positions in that post highly suspect, but I dont have the time/desire to research it, However, ,(and I think it was said before) ending these programs without replacement, would do irreparable harm...and possibly overthrow the American way of life. All I ever hear is about moochers and parasites and fark you , I got mine.

What do you propose to put in these program's place?


A negative income tax policy.
 
2012-09-25 04:16:10 PM  

netizencain: farking retarded. You don't have to 'live in someone's shoes' to figure shiat out.


You do if you've never been poor a single day in your life.
 
2012-09-25 04:30:06 PM  

Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.


How many people are in your household?

downstairs: Depends how much you eat. Thats about $7/day. I only eat once per day (not out of necessity, just how my body works). So I could do it. I wouldn't be happy, but I could.

Now if you're a normal person who eats twice or three times a day, not so much.


Actually, that number is very high for just one person on Food Stamps. Play around with the government's food stamp tool, and you'll see that the daily amount per person is actually a lot lower than that.
 
2012-09-25 04:33:42 PM  
I just got my EBT card on Friday, so I'm getting a kick...

My favorite trick is to pick up a $10 pack of chicken breasts. Toss them in the crock pot with a bunch of spices, and if I freeze half, I've got all the meat I need for a week or more. Add it to ramen, get a $1 can of refried beans, $3 bag of cheese, and a $2 bag of tortilla chips to make nachos, or mix it with rice and frozen veggies.

Various flavors of Cheerios have been on sale for $2.25 a box. So I've been stocking up. Also, a $3 container of Crystal Light drink mix makes 3 gallons.

$200 a month is a bit of a squeeze, but I think I'll be able to make it. Its one of the few times I'm glad I'm single.
 
2012-09-25 04:36:38 PM  

oldass31: Madbassist1: Silly Jesus: In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...

THIS


BTW, I find all the positions in that post highly suspect, but I dont have the time/desire to research it, However, ,(and I think it was said before) ending these programs without replacement, would do irreparable harm...and possibly overthrow the American way of life. All I ever hear is about moochers and parasites and fark you , I got mine.

What do you propose to put in these program's place?

A negative income tax policy.


That inspired the EIC, and look at the screaming that goes on about that.
 
2012-09-25 04:42:21 PM  

Citrate1007: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

Exactly, because spices and staples are free, plus the black market for goods readily available in grocery stores has a 3000% markup.

/you're a farking idiot


Hey, thanks for the ad hominem, you and the others! Here's the thing: salt and one spice (pepper) ARE free -- or so close as to make no odds. Really. You can go into almost any fast food restaurant and snag a week's worth of either. No need to spend a third of your pauper's budget on a few month's worth of them. Or do you think that poor people are just too principled to do so?

And that's presuming you sprung fully-emerged from the head of some angry god into an adult life of poverty, with no one who would give you a salt/pepper shaker set -- not a mother or aunt, not a local food pantry, not a church program for the poor, not the same damn kitchen you still use after losing your job and requiring food assistance.

Then again, maybe your experience is different from mine. Tell me -- do the people you know/have heard of that have gone on government food programs thrown out all the food and spices from their kitchen when they did?

The rules on the "can you live on $X dollars" challenges I looked in to are ridiculously restrictive, to the point of not not coming anywhere close to what people on government assistance programs do. They are designed to make people fail -- and fail DIFFERENTLY than the people truly receiving government assistance. That makes them bad models, and foolish games. Holding them up as validation for anything but one's own do-gooder affirmation is a waste of time.
 
2012-09-25 04:47:29 PM  

gerrymander: Citrate1007: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

Exactly, because spices and staples are free, plus the black market for goods readily available in grocery stores has a 3000% markup.

/you're a farking idiot

Hey, thanks for the ad hominem, you and the others! Here's the thing: salt and one spice (pepper) ARE free -- or so close as to make no odds. Really. You can go into almost any fast food restaurant and snag a week's worth of either. No need to spend a third of your pauper's budget on a few month's worth of them. Or do you think that poor people are just too principled to do so?

And that's presuming you sprung fully-emerged from the head of some angry god into an adult life of poverty, with no one who would give you a salt/pepper shaker set -- not a mother or aunt, not a local food pantry, not a church program for the poor, not the same damn kitchen you still use after losing your job and requiring food assistance.

Then again, maybe your experience is different from mine. Tell me -- do the people you know/have heard of that have gone on government food programs thrown out all the food and spices from their kitchen when they did?

The rules on the "can you live on $X dollars" challenges I looked in to are ridiculously restrictive, to the point of not not coming anywhere close to what people on government assistance programs do. They are designed to make people fail -- and fail DIFFERENTLY than the people truly receiving government assistance. That makes them bad models, and foolish games. Holding them up as validation for anything but one's own do-gooder affirmation is a waste of time.


Being a do-gooder is really a horrible thing isn't it? I hate when people are concerned about the well being of others like that. It's just wrong. Disdain and selfishness really is the better attitude.
 
2012-09-25 04:49:23 PM  
Combined federal and state means-tested welfare is now the second-largest category of overall government spending in the nation. It is exceeded only by the combined cost of Social Security and Medicare. Welfare spending is greater than the cost of public education and is greater than spending on national defense.

Since national defense spending is 1/3 of the total national budget, and medicare/medicaid/social security makes up another 1/3, I stopped reading your tirade here as it is not possible for it to be that high. In addition, it is well known that corporate welfare dwarfs that of individuals.

People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage. This problem was seeded back in the 80s when businesses stopped giving raises for increased production. Now you have the very poor and the very rich. The rich became that way from not paying good wages and now resent having to shell out a couple bucks so that the people they cheated don't starve to death.
 
2012-09-25 04:51:28 PM  

unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.


I feed myself and my boyfriend for a month on $200 easily. That's actually much higher than our budget for food in the past (try $50 a month!) $200 a month is an easy budget to work with for me.
 
2012-09-25 04:53:38 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: oldass31: Madbassist1: Silly Jesus: In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...

THIS


BTW, I find all the positions in that post highly suspect, but I dont have the time/desire to research it, However, ,(and I think it was said before) ending these programs without replacement, would do irreparable harm...and possibly overthrow the American way of life. All I ever hear is about moochers and parasites and fark you , I got mine.

What do you propose to put in these program's place?

A negative income tax policy.

That inspired the EIC, and look at the screaming that goes on about that.


I don't hear very much complaining about the EIC specifically unless you're talking more generally about all that "47% of people are parasites" nonsense.
 
2012-09-25 05:00:22 PM  
Arizona native here, thought I should pipe-in.

My family was middle class then fell on hard times when I was very young. My father absolutely refused to go on food stamps.

I would say that decision was in error.

I cam from a large family and often the only *complete* meal I would get would be at lunch. Breakfast became a distant memory. Thank god at some of the different houses I grew up in there were trees that bore fruit. My point of bringing this up is not to say "whoa was me", but rather to explain that regardless of what side of the political fence you're on, children should NOT go to bed hungry, period. Not in this country. We're better than that - or at least, we should be.
 
2012-09-25 05:07:16 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Being a do-gooder is really a horrible thing isn't it? I hate when people are concerned about the well being of others like that. It's just wrong. Disdain and selfishness really is the better attitude.


When compared with faddish self-involvement that does nothing to actually help, disdain and selfishness truly is the better alternative. At the very least, there isn't some attention-whoring nitwit standing in the way of real social progress.
 
2012-09-25 05:07:57 PM  

NotARocketScientist: Combined federal and state means-tested welfare is now the second-largest category of overall government spending in the nation. It is exceeded only by the combined cost of Social Security and Medicare. Welfare spending is greater than the cost of public education and is greater than spending on national defense.

Since national defense spending is 1/3 of the total national budget, and medicare/medicaid/social security makes up another 1/3, I stopped reading your tirade here as it is not possible for it to be that high. In addition, it is well known that corporate welfare dwarfs that of individuals.


You shouldn't dismiss his argument so readily. DoD spending is more like 20% and medicare/medicaid/social security is ~45%. Plus the author clearly states that it includes means-tested spending on both the federal, state, and local levels.
 
2012-09-25 05:11:59 PM  

gerrymander: Philip Francis Queeg: Being a do-gooder is really a horrible thing isn't it? I hate when people are concerned about the well being of others like that. It's just wrong. Disdain and selfishness really is the better attitude.

When compared with faddish self-involvement that does nothing to actually help, disdain and selfishness truly is the better alternative. At the very least, there isn't some attention-whoring nitwit standing in the way of real social progress.


Yes, yes I agree. Caring about others is for losers. People have to stop considering anything but their own p[personal self interest. If someone is in your way, stomp them and stomp them hard. Especially if it is some nit wit who is concerned about the impact of your actions upon others. If children don't have food, tough. That just ,means that someone else is making even more for themselves, and that's all that really matters.
 
2012-09-25 05:23:02 PM  

Burn_The_Plows: I would love to have $29 a week for food. Right now I'm at $18-$20. (It was $16/ week before the Sentry up the street was replaced by a Piggly-Wiggly.)

It's really not that difficult if you live in a city. No meat and check sales fliers. Sure I have to walk 35 minutes to get day-old loaves of bread, but I'm not cutting into my savings much.

I also go shopping to further away stores after job interviews as long as I have a bus transfer.


Plus your using dial up to input that comment to fark or your at the public library right? No I have it. You have an iPhone on a $100 a month
plan and to keep that your eating at less than food stamp levels.
 
2012-09-25 05:24:40 PM  

gerrymander: Citrate1007: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

Exactly, because spices and staples are free, plus the black market for goods readily available in grocery stores has a 3000% markup.

/you're a farking idiot

Hey, thanks for the ad hominem, you and the others!


Don't act like a dick, don't get verbally abused. Try it sometime, dear.
 
2012-09-25 05:25:59 PM  
On 29 bucks a week, Gov. Jan Brewer would spend 6 1/2 days sober.
 
2012-09-25 05:34:20 PM  

oldass31: I don't hear very much complaining about the EIC specifically unless you're talking more generally about all that "47% of people are parasites" nonsense.


That's the most recent incarnation of it.

It existed as part of the talking points long before Willard mentioned it to his donors.
 
2012-09-25 05:39:25 PM  

BSABSVR: Silly Jesus: BSABSVR: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

Well, he's not including the cell phones, Xboxes and rims that Fark informs me are attached to every poor person at all times either.

Fark has to inform you of that? You don't get out much / read police blotters much do you?

Yeah. I have better things to do that read the police blotter. Clearly that's a farking moral failing.

Try thinking before posting for a change.


You lost me...
 
2012-09-25 05:39:26 PM  

Bird3149: On 29 bucks a week, Gov. Jan Brewer would spend 6 1/2 days sober.


That's not bootstrappy enough!

Sure you need to buy a 50 gallon trash can and a packet of yeast to start. But after that a couple of pounds of sugar periodically doesn't cost that much.

/actually you'd need at least two containers. One fermenting, one being consumed.
//Plus, I hear you can get sugar packets for free at fast food joints, just like salt and pepper!
 
2012-09-25 05:40:49 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Silly Jesus: In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...

THIS


You mean you think that if this was proposed as an alternative, the answer wouldn't be

"No! Because SOCIALISM!"
?

/I wonder where the free 'means testing' would come from


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Amiright?
 
2012-09-25 05:41:01 PM  

gerrymander: Philip Francis Queeg: Being a do-gooder is really a horrible thing isn't it? I hate when people are concerned about the well being of others like that. It's just wrong. Disdain and selfishness really is the better attitude.

When compared with faddish self-involvement that does nothing to actually help, disdain and selfishness truly is the better alternative. At the very least, there isn't some attention-whoring nitwit standing in the way of real social progress.


So, being a selfish attention whore who still does some good is worse than just being selfish and not helping at all? Are you sure you understand what the phrase "social progress" actually means?
 
2012-09-25 05:43:18 PM  

Madbassist1: Silly Jesus: In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...

THIS


BTW, I find all the positions in that post highly suspect, but I dont have the time/desire to research it, However, ,(and I think it was said before) ending these programs without replacement, would do irreparable harm...and possibly overthrow the American way of life. All I ever hear is about moochers and parasites and fark you , I got mine.

What do you propose to put in these program's place?


www.shimer.edu
 
2012-09-25 05:43:20 PM  

NotARocketScientist: Combined federal and state means-tested welfare is now the second-largest category of overall government spending in the nation. It is exceeded only by the combined cost of Social Security and Medicare. Welfare spending is greater than the cost of public education and is greater than spending on national defense.

Since national defense spending is 1/3 of the total national budget, and medicare/medicaid/social security makes up another 1/3, I stopped reading your tirade here as it is not possible for it to be that high. In addition, it is well known that corporate welfare dwarfs that of individuals.
.


CItation?


Your problem is you don't pay enough attention. The figures cited are combined Federal and state means tested welfare spending.

A more complete breakdown of government spending can be found here though MEDICAID is included uner health care spending and things like means tested education programs are under Education spending. Energy and utility assistance might be under energy spendign etc. When you all these means tested welfare programs together you have over $900 billion in COMBINED government spending


Since MEDICAID is a means tested program unlike Social Secuirty and MEDICARE it is part of the Welfare spending dollars

I will repost to help you:

In FY 2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare, plus state contributions to federal programs, reached approx. $940 billion. The federal share will come to around $695 billion, or 74 percent, while state spending will be around $250 billion, or 26 percent.

Combined federal and state means-tested welfare is now the second-largest category of overall government spending in the nation. It is exceeded only by the combined cost of Social Security and Medicare. Welfare spending is greater than the cost of public education and is greater than spending on national defense.

There are 69 means-tested programs operated by the federal government provide a wide variety of benefits. They include:

•12 programs providing food aid;

•10 housing assistance programs;

•10 programs funding social services;

•9 educational assistance programs;

•8 programs providing cash assistance;

•8 vocational training programs;

•7 medical assistance programs;

•3 energy and utility assistance programs; and,

•2 child care and child development programs.

Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, unemployment insurance, and workmen's compensation are not considered means-tested aid and are not included in this list

70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor.

In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children was about $470 billion. If this sum were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with c ...
 
2012-09-25 05:45:22 PM  

Old enough to know better: I just got my EBT card on Friday, so I'm getting a kick...

My favorite trick is to pick up a $10 pack of chicken breasts. Toss them in the crock pot with a bunch of spices, and if I freeze half, I've got all the meat I need for a week or more. Add it to ramen, get a $1 can of refried beans, $3 bag of cheese, and a $2 bag of tortilla chips to make nachos, or mix it with rice and frozen veggies.

Various flavors of Cheerios have been on sale for $2.25 a box. So I've been stocking up. Also, a $3 container of Crystal Light drink mix makes 3 gallons.

$200 a month is a bit of a squeeze, but I think I'll be able to make it. Its one of the few times I'm glad I'm single.


1. You're welcome.
2. Get a job.
 
2012-09-25 05:46:33 PM  

hasty ambush: 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor.


It really is terrible that doctors, social workers and others who serve the poor get paid for their labor. Why can't we give that money to the Job Creators and demand that those who serve the poor work for free?
 
2012-09-25 05:47:18 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: gerrymander: Citrate1007: gerrymander: Was this another one of those bullshiat "challenges" that doesn't allow the use of salt and spices already present in the household, or the resale of items purchased with food program money, or any of the other things people on government food assistance programs actually do?

Exactly, because spices and staples are free, plus the black market for goods readily available in grocery stores has a 3000% markup.

/you're a farking idiot

Hey, thanks for the ad hominem, you and the others! Here's the thing: salt and one spice (pepper) ARE free -- or so close as to make no odds. Really. You can go into almost any fast food restaurant and snag a week's worth of either. No need to spend a third of your pauper's budget on a few month's worth of them. Or do you think that poor people are just too principled to do so?

And that's presuming you sprung fully-emerged from the head of some angry god into an adult life of poverty, with no one who would give you a salt/pepper shaker set -- not a mother or aunt, not a local food pantry, not a church program for the poor, not the same damn kitchen you still use after losing your job and requiring food assistance.

Then again, maybe your experience is different from mine. Tell me -- do the people you know/have heard of that have gone on government food programs thrown out all the food and spices from their kitchen when they did?

The rules on the "can you live on $X dollars" challenges I looked in to are ridiculously restrictive, to the point of not not coming anywhere close to what people on government assistance programs do. They are designed to make people fail -- and fail DIFFERENTLY than the people truly receiving government assistance. That makes them bad models, and foolish games. Holding them up as validation for anything but one's own do-gooder affirmation is a waste of time.

Being a do-gooder is really a horrible thing isn't it? I hate when people are concerned about the well being of o ...


Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.
 
2012-09-25 05:47:23 PM  

Silly Jesus: What do you propose to put in these program's place?

www.shimer.edu



Well, at least it wasn't

www.thinkgeek.com

Although that would seem consistent with the theme.
 
2012-09-25 05:49:14 PM  

Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.


So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.
 
2012-09-25 05:53:18 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.


WTF are you talking about?
 
2012-09-25 05:54:18 PM  

Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.


...at the POINT OF A GUN, amirite, hoss?
 
2012-09-25 05:56:29 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.

WTF are you talking about?


I'm agreeing that it's terrible that you are so cruelly forced to show concern for others by paying for emergency services. Why should you be force to pay for your neighbor to be saved in an emergency any more than you should be forced to pay for others to get food assistance?
 
2012-09-25 05:57:15 PM  
They should have made him use the old paper food stamps. I know, no one accepts them anymore and haven't for years.
The times that I did use them were some of the most humbling moments of my life. It made me want to get off food stamps.
 
2012-09-25 05:59:39 PM  

DrBenway: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

...at the POINT OF A GUN, amirite, hoss?


LULZ

Well, that IS the ultimate result of not paying taxes..but I know what you're trying to do there. So sneaky sneaky.

I was merely differentiating between private, voluntary charity and public, forced charity.
 
2012-09-25 06:00:54 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm agreeing that it's terrible that you are so cruelly forced to show concern for others by paying for emergency services. Why should you be force to pay for your neighbor to be saved in an emergency any more than you should be forced to pay for others to get food assistance?


I'm not paying for my neighbor to be saved in an emergency. I'm paying for ME to be saved in an emergency.
 
2012-09-25 06:02:15 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm agreeing that it's terrible that you are so cruelly forced to show concern for others by paying for emergency services. Why should you be force to pay for your neighbor to be saved in an emergency any more than you should be forced to pay for others to get food assistance?

I'm not paying for my neighbor to be saved in an emergency. I'm paying for ME to be saved in an emergency.


Oh, so when you are forced to pay for the food assistance, you are paying for the program to be therer when you need it?
 
Displayed 50 of 227 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report