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.

(CNSNews)   Change you can believe in: there are more people on welfare than working full time   (cnsnews.com) divider line 259
    More: Fail, Census Bureau, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, CIA World Factbook, Supplemental Security Income, children's programming, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, United States Secretary of Agriculture, Iowa State Fair  
•       •       •

3351 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Oct 2013 at 3:52 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-25 09:40:51 PM
Damn you, Obama for being a Time Lord and going back in time and creating so many old people!
 
2013-10-25 09:43:28 PM
82,457,000 people in households receiving Medicaid, 49,073,000 beneficiaries of food stamps, 20,223,000 on Supplemental Security Income, 23,228,000 in the Women, Infants and Children program, 13,433,000 in public or subsidized rental housing, and 5,854,000 in the Temporary Assistance for Needy.

Mostly health care for the elderly and food stamps.

/oh the horror
 
2013-10-25 09:52:17 PM
Well, if you're going to count kids that receive Medicaid or benefit from food stamps, and anyone living in subsidized housing regardless of age, you're working with a much larger population base than those eligible for work.

However, this does still indicate a serious problem.  That problem is that the figures of those working full time and those receiving benefits are not mutually exclusive.  You can work full time in this country and still not have enough money to provide for your own basic needs, not to mention providing for any family members who can't work themselves.

At minimum wage working full time, 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, someone earns a hair over $15,000 annually.  That's not enough for one person to pay for housing, utilities, and food without even taking dependents into the picture.

Really, these figures show the level of corporate malfeasance in this country where big businesses benefit from paying far too low of wages and let the government, and therefore the American taxpayers, pick up the slack.

The problem isn't the individuals in the system abusing it, it's the employers who don't pay enough for people to live on their wages without having to resort to government assistance.
 
2013-10-25 10:07:23 PM
That's it.  I'm quitting my job tomorrow.  When do my Obama checks, Obama phone and Obamacare arrive?  I've got 3 or 4 days of savings, if it takes any longer than that, I'm screwed.
 
2013-10-25 10:13:04 PM
Is social security considered welfare? Not in my book.

I don't care how many people I'm supporting with my taxes as long as I make enough to support my family. It just doesn't matter and I'm tired of talking about it. Soon enough I won't be supporting them.
 
2013-10-25 10:19:05 PM
82 million on Medicaid? What BS. And nobody even questions it.
 
2013-10-25 10:22:44 PM

edmo: 82 million on Medicaid? What BS. And nobody even questions it.


Yeah, we could easily solve that by moving to a universal single payer system that covers everyone equally regardless of income or employment status.
 
2013-10-25 10:28:20 PM
Well then, we should put all those unemployed kids to work.

Besides, if you're gonna compare the numbers, where one counts all the people in a household where at least one person receives benefits, then you should compare it to a number that counts everyone in a household where at least one person has a job.
 
2013-10-25 10:34:52 PM
Obviously, the solution is to kick people off of welfare.
 
2013-10-25 10:50:30 PM
Two striper in the military with a wife and two kids and the family qualifies for foodstamps.

That means:

One person working.
4 people on foodstamps.
4 to one ratio of "moochers" to workers.

The 100s of thousands working 32 hours at the big boxes don't count as full time employed, even though they are begging for more hours.

That means:

No person working full time.
One or more on assistance.
More than one "moocher" if they have a family.

And so on...

Come on assholes, surely you don't think we're going to fall for that.
 
2013-10-25 11:00:06 PM

Sgygus: 82,457,000 people in households receiving Medicaid, 49,073,000 beneficiaries of food stamps, 20,223,000 on Supplemental Security Income, 23,228,000 in the Women, Infants and Children program, 13,433,000 in public or subsidized rental housing, and 5,854,000 in the Temporary Assistance for Needy.

Mostly health care for the elderly and food stamps.

/oh the horror


elderly - defined as anybody over 30

/logan's run kinda old
 
2013-10-25 11:10:29 PM
To be fair, the Republicans promised a laser like focus on jobs. They didn't say good jobs with a livable salary.
 
2013-10-25 11:16:33 PM

simplicimus: To be fair, the Republicans promised a laser like focus on jobs. They didn't say good jobs with a livable salary.


Rather, they meant blowjobs for their corporate masters, administered by the general public, so that they'll in return receive handjobs in the form of campaign donations and cushy gigs after leaving public service and cashing in.
 
2013-10-25 11:19:37 PM
Well then we should just stop feeding the hungry and healing the sick. You know, like Jesus would do.
 
2013-10-25 11:23:00 PM
Where's the incentive to work? Starving to death is a real motivator to go find a job.

/failing that you can always kill someone and take their stuff
 
2013-10-25 11:30:57 PM

EvilEgg: Where's the incentive to work? Starving to death is a real motivator to go find a job.

/failing that you can always kill someone and take their stuff


Motivation is irrelevant when jobs available = 0.
 
2013-10-25 11:32:49 PM
Well its a good thing that Wells Fargo just laid off hundreds of people so they can make the biggest profits they've ever seen. Why create new jobs when you force existing people to work twice as hard and fire a few just to keep the workers scared shiatless and on their toes?
 
2013-10-25 11:33:03 PM
this is because babyboomers, right?
 
2013-10-25 11:41:21 PM

Somacandra: Well its a good thing that Wells Fargo just laid off hundreds of people so they can make the biggest profits they've ever seen. Why create new jobs when you force existing people to work twice as hard and fire a few just to keep the workers scared shiatless and on their toes?


I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for anything involving a bank, even if they're lower level workers.  They are laying people off because their mortgage division can't rape the general public as much as it used to.  That's a good thing.

Sgygus: 49,073,000 beneficiaries of food stamps,


I'll admit, that number is a lot higher than I thought.  That's a full 15% of the population.  I realize food stamps don't preclude work, I just had it in the back of my head that we were hovering around 10%.
 
2013-10-25 11:47:31 PM
They also out-numbered the total population of the Philippines.

Maybe we should add the Philippines to Somalia on the list of Libertarian paradises that conservatives should hold up as paragons of FREEDOM.
 
2013-10-25 11:55:36 PM
Listen, we are heading towards a system where technology will replace people in the economy faster than people invent new ways to participate. Some could argue we are already there. If the populace doesn't want to suffer a declining standard of living you only have two options.

1: Deliberate inefficiencies. Society can say that the value of having a job performed by someone who is making a wage is worth more than the productivity gains. This is going to hit home when taxi drivers are replaced.

2: Agressive redistribution of income. You can have all the productivity gains you can imagine but they must provide a marginal benefit to society.


People who argue that this isn't something we're going to have to deal with aren't looking at the trend lines.
 
2013-10-26 12:01:50 AM

b2theory: 2: Agressive redistribution of income.


I agree, but not *agressive*. Even a tiny mild redistribution of income, focused on modernizing our infrastructure would be fine with me.
 
2013-10-26 12:06:55 AM

vernonFL: b2theory: 2: Agressive redistribution of income.

I agree, but not *agressive*. Even a tiny mild redistribution of income, focused on modernizing our infrastructure would be fine with me.


I'm not talking about a world as
It exists today. I am concerned with 25-50 year trends. I know people want redistribution for "fairness" sake. I don't agree with that. However, there is a good argument for social cohesion.


Also, I vote Republican
 
2013-10-26 12:34:18 AM

b2theory: Listen, we are heading towards a system where technology will replace people in the economy faster than people invent new ways to participate. Some could argue we are already there. If the populace doesn't want to suffer a declining standard of living you only have two options.

1: Deliberate inefficiencies. Society can say that the value of having a job performed by someone who is making a wage is worth more than the productivity gains. This is going to hit home when taxi drivers are replaced.

2: Agressive redistribution of income. You can have all the productivity gains you can imagine but they must provide a marginal benefit to society.


People who argue that this isn't something we're going to have to deal with aren't looking at the trend lines.


There is certainly a trend towards more automation replacing actual  human jobs, but we're losing more jobs to outsourcing overseas than we are to automation.  Reforming the corporate tax code to penalize outsourcing while rewarding hiring Americans at fair wages would be a good first step.  Raising the minimum wage to lift everyone's boat would also be a great move.

At the end of the day though, we need to look at the fact that the top 1% has been collecting wealth at an unprecedented rate, and that corporate profits are soaring while the vast majority of wages are stagnant.   For the good of society those trends can't continue.  The GOP has labeled wealth redistribution as a bad thing, but is it really?

Perhaps a guaranteed living income would be good for this country.  Let's say that every adult is guaranteed $30,000 per year (just throwing that figure out there, the exact amount could be figured differently) whether they work or not.  If they work full time the benefit is reduced progressively based on their wages so that there's still incentive to work (so, someone who earns a $30,000/year salary from working would still earn a partial benefit, someone earning $40,000/year would earn less of a benefit, so on and so forth, so that there's always incentive to earn more).  Add in universal single payer healthcare and universal post-secondary education and we can build a first-class modern economy for the next generation.

Of course, it will need to be paid for, which is why we need massive tax hikes on the top income brackets and corporate earnings.  Loopholes need to be closed for corporations so that they can't move earnings overseas, and penalties for paying too low of wages, not offering enough full time positions, or not hiring enough domestically need to be instituted.
 
2013-10-26 12:36:51 AM

b2theory: vernonFL: b2theory: 2: Agressive redistribution of income.

I agree, but not *agressive*. Even a tiny mild redistribution of income, focused on modernizing our infrastructure would be fine with me.

I'm not talking about a world as
It exists today. I am concerned with 25-50 year trends. I know people want redistribution for "fairness" sake. I don't agree with that. However, there is a good argument for social cohesion.


Also, I vote Republican


The "fairness" sake comes from how quickly that gap widened in the last 40 years, and a feeling of a returned Gilded Age. Had so much of the benefits gone to so few and so much taken from so many, the level of anger would be much much lower. Not that we're near a Bastille Day (unfortunately) but people are getting pissed.
 
2013-10-26 12:37:50 AM
Nothing pisses me off more than knowing that my federally-funded paycheck is taxed to pay for health care for the indigent and for food for infants.
 
2013-10-26 12:42:10 AM
That's it, I'm not going to vote for Obama next time.
 
2013-10-26 12:48:37 AM

Sgygus: 82,457,000 people in households receiving Medicaid, 49,073,000 beneficiaries of food stamps, 20,223,000 on Supplemental Security Income, 23,228,000 in the Women, Infants and Children program, 13,433,000 in public or subsidized rental housing, and 5,854,000 in the Temporary Assistance for Needy.

Mostly health care for the elderly and food stamps.

/oh the horror


Medicaid is poor people not old people.
sorry if I am the 42 person to point this out.

I completely agree with you though.
Some of the people counted were getting school lunches and breakfasts.

We live in such a farked up country.
 
2013-10-26 12:58:44 AM

unamused: Two striper in the military with a wife and two kids and the family qualifies for foodstamps.

That means:

One person working.
4 people on foodstamps.
4 to one ratio of "moochers" to workers.

The 100s of thousands working 32 hours at the big boxes don't count as full time employed, even though they are begging for more hours.

That means:

No person working full time.
One or more on assistance.
More than one "moocher" if they have a family.

And so on...

Come on assholes, surely you don't think we're going to fall for that.


I dont think that there is anything sadder than our military qualifying for food stamps.
(Certainly have ZERO problem with y'all getting it.)
Just pathetic that we pay you so little.

You would think that with such a huge budget things would be a tiny bit better.
Too bad all that money goes to contractors and the military-industrial complex.
Of course of we shut that down, what would THAT do to the unemployment rates???
 
2013-10-26 01:06:56 AM

unamused: EvilEgg: Where's the incentive to work? Starving to death is a real motivator to go find a job.

/failing that you can always kill someone and take their stuff

Motivation is irrelevant when jobs available = 0.


Yet we need immigration 'reform' so we can have more people in the US who can't get a job.
 
2013-10-26 01:11:41 AM

namatad: unamused: Two striper in the military with a wife and two kids and the family qualifies for foodstamps.

That means:

One person working.
4 people on foodstamps.
4 to one ratio of "moochers" to workers.

The 100s of thousands working 32 hours at the big boxes don't count as full time employed, even though they are begging for more hours.

That means:

No person working full time.
One or more on assistance.
More than one "moocher" if they have a family.

And so on...

Come on assholes, surely you don't think we're going to fall for that.

I dont think that there is anything sadder than our military qualifying for food stamps.
(Certainly have ZERO problem with y'all getting it.)
Just pathetic that we pay you so little.

You would think that with such a huge budget things would be a tiny bit better.
Too bad all that money goes to contractors and the military-industrial complex.
Of course of we shut that down, what would THAT do to the unemployment rates???


Well, if we used that money to invest in things such as infrastructure rebuilding (which is sorely needed), it's probably lower the unemployment while putting less money in the hands of a few war profiteers.
 
2013-10-26 01:19:36 AM

namatad: unamused: Two striper in the military with a wife and two kids and the family qualifies for foodstamps.

That means:

One person working.
4 people on foodstamps.
4 to one ratio of "moochers" to workers.

The 100s of thousands working 32 hours at the big boxes don't count as full time employed, even though they are begging for more hours.

That means:

No person working full time.
One or more on assistance.
More than one "moocher" if they have a family.

And so on...

Come on assholes, surely you don't think we're going to fall for that.

I dont think that there is anything sadder than our military qualifying for food stamps.
(Certainly have ZERO problem with y'all getting it.)
Just pathetic that we pay you so little.

You would think that with such a huge budget things would be a tiny bit better.
Too bad all that money goes to contractors and the military-industrial complex.
Of course of we shut that down, what would THAT do to the unemployment rates???


The military is a life-long entitlement generator, starting with the GI bill, and ending with senior VA assistance.  Vets get highly preferential treatment from those "military-industrial" contractors who have some of the best job security around.  Maybe if every goddamn brainless E-2 didn't go out and buy a pickup truck with dualies with his first check and then knock up his then-girlfriend later-wife immediately before he deployed.

Everyone has choices to make.  Don't pretend that simply because you enlist you suddenly deserve more of everything : money, public solicitude, entitlements.  You already get a shiat ton.
 
2013-10-26 01:23:26 AM
i803.photobucket.com
 
2013-10-26 01:47:56 AM
Yeah and it's because everyone is lazy, right Repubs? It didn't have anything to do with your people looting the economy.
/dnrtft
 
2013-10-26 02:29:07 AM
where are the job creators?
 
2013-10-26 02:35:43 AM

ceebeecates4: namatad: unamused: Two striper in the military with a wife and two kids and the family qualifies for foodstamps.

That means:

One person working.
4 people on foodstamps.
4 to one ratio of "moochers" to workers.

The 100s of thousands working 32 hours at the big boxes don't count as full time employed, even though they are begging for more hours.

That means:

No person working full time.
One or more on assistance.
More than one "moocher" if they have a family.

And so on...

Come on assholes, surely you don't think we're going to fall for that.

I dont think that there is anything sadder than our military qualifying for food stamps.
(Certainly have ZERO problem with y'all getting it.)
Just pathetic that we pay you so little.

You would think that with such a huge budget things would be a tiny bit better.
Too bad all that money goes to contractors and the military-industrial complex.
Of course of we shut that down, what would THAT do to the unemployment rates???

The military is a life-long entitlement generator, starting with the GI bill, and ending with senior VA assistance.  Vets get highly preferential treatment from those "military-industrial" contractors who have some of the best job security around.  Maybe if every goddamn brainless E-2 didn't go out and buy a pickup truck with dualies with his first check and then knock up his then-girlfriend later-wife immediately before he deployed.

Everyone has choices to make.  Don't pretend that simply because you enlist you suddenly deserve more of everything : money, public solicitude, entitlements.  You already get a shiat ton.


Who pissed in your corn flakes?
 
2013-10-26 02:38:57 AM

ceebeecates4: The military is a life-long entitlement generator, starting with the GI bill, and ending with senior VA assistance.  Vets get highly preferential treatment from those "military-industrial" contractors who have some of the best job security around.  Maybe if every goddamn brainless E-2 didn't go out and buy a pickup truck with dualies with his first check and then knock up his then-girlfriend later-wife immediately before he deployed.

Everyone has choices to make.  Don't pretend that simply because you enlist you suddenly deserve more of everything : money, public solicitude, entitlements.  You already get a shiat ton.


ah. you pulled a mid watch tonight and you're feeling a little pissy about it. got it.
 
2013-10-26 03:07:40 AM

log_jammin: where are the job creators?


They took the extra money they got to keep because of their tax breaks and decided to go on an extended around-the-world cruise. But that's okay. They're tipping their room stewards really well.
 
2013-10-26 03:21:22 AM

Fark Me To Tears: But that's okay. They're tipping their room stewards really well.


they're always expected to give handouts to people.
 
2013-10-26 03:52:04 AM
I know we can biatch about jobs or the economy or this or that, but I don't know how people can biatch about more people being on welfare without realizing that they are basically coming across as saying "why aren't these people going hungry?". I know there is a lot more to it, but seriously, you soundbite happy Republicans need to work on the delivery because at this rate you'll never get to the punchline.
 
2013-10-26 03:56:34 AM
So, record corporate profits and record gains by the wealthy result in more Americans on the dole.

And Republicans STILL think trickle-down economics benefits the 99%?
 
2013-10-26 04:02:51 AM

ghare: So, record corporate profits and record gains by the wealthy result in more Americans on the dole.

And Republicans STILL think trickle-down economics benefits the 99%?


No. They've never thought that. They've said it. Suckers have believed it. That's a very different thing.
 
2013-10-26 04:05:01 AM

log_jammin: ah. you pulled a mid watch tonight and you're feeling a little pissy about it. got it.


He has a point about civilian contractors. They're doing the same job as an E-4 and getting paid ten times what the E-4 makes in a month.
 
2013-10-26 04:14:40 AM
"CNS NEWS"

plonk.
 
2013-10-26 04:19:44 AM

TuteTibiImperes: At minimum wage working full time, 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, someone earns a hair over $15,000 annually.  That's not enough for one person to pay for housing, utilities, and food without even taking dependents into the picture.


Depends on where you live...especially if you cut utilities to the bone, it's doable in places.  That's why the poverty guidelines for a single person is $11,900 (approx.), and goes up about $3,500 per person in the household.
 
2013-10-26 04:21:49 AM

TuteTibiImperes: simplicimus: To be fair, the Republicans promised a laser like focus on jobs. They didn't say good jobs with a livable salary.

Rather, they meant blowjobs for their corporate masters, administered by the general public, so that they'll in return receive handjobs in the form of campaign donations and cushy gigs after leaving public service and cashing in.


It's like a grocery store owner who tells a homeless black guy to "get a job!" ...then turns around and rejects a black applicant for employment in his store because "well, he could steal from me!"  ...not helping.
 
2013-10-26 04:24:48 AM

b2theory: Listen, we are heading towards a system where technology will replace people in the economy faster than people invent new ways to participate. Some could argue we are already there. If the populace doesn't want to suffer a declining standard of living you only have two options.

1: Deliberate inefficiencies. Society can say that the value of having a job performed by someone who is making a wage is worth more than the productivity gains. This is going to hit home when taxi drivers are replaced.

2: Agressive redistribution of income. You can have all the productivity gains you can imagine but they must provide a marginal benefit to society.


People who argue that this isn't something we're going to have to deal with aren't looking at the trend lines.


we are already there regarding #1.
/libertarian..hard core capitalist
//capitalism is gonna die and be replaced by socialism
////good!
 
2013-10-26 04:27:44 AM

namatad: unamused: Two striper in the military with a wife and two kids and the family qualifies for foodstamps.

That means:

One person working.
4 people on foodstamps.
4 to one ratio of "moochers" to workers.

The 100s of thousands working 32 hours at the big boxes don't count as full time employed, even though they are begging for more hours.

That means:

No person working full time.
One or more on assistance.
More than one "moocher" if they have a family.

And so on...

Come on assholes, surely you don't think we're going to fall for that.

I dont think that there is anything sadder than our military qualifying for food stamps.
(Certainly have ZERO problem with y'all getting it.)
Just pathetic that we pay you so little.

You would think that with such a huge budget things would be a tiny bit better.
Too bad all that money goes to contractors and the military-industrial complex.
Of course of we shut that down, what would THAT do to the unemployment rates???


A "Two-Striper" in the Army with 2 years of service living with a family in Texas - let's say Fort Hood - earns $41,400 per year...has free health insurance, 30 days of paid vacation, and only pays federal taxes on 60% of their income.  Pretty decent for a 20 something with no education and practically zero technical skills.  Once they make E-5 it will be more like $50,000 per year.
 
2013-10-26 04:29:13 AM
Well.....

You want to know why we have this little problem? Here's one reason:

In China, they still mine coal the old-fashioned way, with picks & shovels under early-20th-century conditions, guys going down and nearly digging the crap out of the tunnels with their bare hands. No safety mechanisms to speak of. It takes 20 Chinese miners to produce the same amount of coal that one American miner produces per day. Now let's flip that around in terms of man-hours. That means there are 20 Chinese miners employed for every one American miner who brings home a paycheck. Sure, they work under conditions of awful barbarity, and have a fatality rate that even the worst US mines would never tolerate...but more than 20 times as many of them are working.

The same is true in sweatshops and unskilled-labor factories all over the world. They've opted to keep as many people working--albeit for slave wages and slave conditions--over mechanization, computerization and safety. That's why China and India are slowly catching up to the US in terms of standard of living (very very slowly, true, but still catching up). And it's one reason why so many Americans have no work. There are only so many service jobs, tech jobs and professional jobs available--after that, the unskilled labor market is pretty well saturated. We pride ourselves on our safe mines and safe factories and safe mills and safe refineries...but safety means human labor is taken out of the equation (because when a machine breaks, nobody dies, amirite?). When 13 people die in a mine collapse in West Virginia it's equivalent to 130 dying in China precisely because they still use all those extra miners where we use equipment.

It may not be a perfect 1:1 trade off: but mechanization killed Detroit, it caused the Rust Belt and wiped out the farm belt as we used to know it. And it's an unseen reason for why we have so much unemployment today. Not that anyone will listen to Cassandra, of course.
 
2013-10-26 04:30:28 AM
Did anyone else notice that the numbers are from two years ago, when US unemployment was still around nine percent? Because that seems relevant.
 
Displayed 50 of 259 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report