Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Chicago Trib)   Has Wal-Mart become a welfare queen after revealing it is dependent on food stamps?   ( chicagotribune.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Walmart, welfare queen, Michael Hiltzik, median household income, welfare programs, Barry Ritholtz  
•       •       •

16542 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2014 at 10:33 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



512 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-25 09:17:13 AM  
that should be an embarrassment to every American. That our largest corporations and our richest family is on welfare.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-25 09:17:17 AM  
We'll find out when Obama decrees any business accepting food stamps has to pay its workers $15 per hour plus a free rainbow flag on Harvey Milk's birthday. If they go along, they're addicted to welfare.
 
2014-03-25 09:18:04 AM  
Wal-Mart CEOs, Presidents and Board of Directors should have to undergo drug tests every month. Also, they shouldn't spend their billions on lobster, cigarettes or soda.

Rep Paul Ryan is going to have a field day going after Wal-Mart! Right?
 
2014-03-25 09:23:27 AM  
1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.
 
2014-03-25 09:32:37 AM  

ZAZ: any business accepting food stamps has to pay its workers $15 per hour


Huh.  I'm sure there are many unintended consequences that will be pointed out to me, but at first glance, I'd support that businesses accepting food stamps should pay $10.10.
 
2014-03-25 10:13:18 AM  
I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.
 
2014-03-25 10:27:53 AM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


None of this is as sexy as 'mudslide: the muddening' or 'airplane 3: disappered?' or 'crimea river, ukraine too much russia'

You are asking for real change.
 
2014-03-25 10:35:34 AM  
Is Walmart Black and poor?
 
2014-03-25 10:35:39 AM  
Y-you mean the Republicans cunning plan to starve the country is coming back to bite the ass of one of it's bigger benefactors?

www.reactiongifs.us
 
2014-03-25 10:35:47 AM  
Always low expectations

/Always
 
2014-03-25 10:36:03 AM  
Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.
 
2014-03-25 10:36:40 AM  
Don't know if Walmart is,   but 1 in 6 Americans are dependent on food stamps.

And then there are those on private charities and food banks.
 
2014-03-25 10:36:41 AM  

SovietCanuckistan: Is Walmart Black and poor?


Just their employees.
 
2014-03-25 10:37:01 AM  
More proof liberal policies are really the corporate welfare.
 
2014-03-25 10:38:09 AM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


yeah but all that money comes from the taxpayer anyway.
 
2014-03-25 10:38:58 AM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


Junior enlisted paygrades are low in pay because they're expected to be trainees.  When you enlist with a few kids, or enlist and then knock up the first girl that bats her eyes at you in an off-base bar you're going to struggle.  However, advancement is fairly regular early on and there are always time-in-service pay raises.  Furthermore, military families get free healthcare, subsidized groceries, tax-free housing and subsistence allowances, or they get base housing.  Yes some junior enlisted personnel with kids end up using SNAP, but they are not the general case unlike Wal-Mart.
 
2014-03-25 10:39:06 AM  
Clearly, the solution is to give the super-rich tax cuts.

The Waltons could then continue with their job creation duties. They won't do that, though, unless we cut their taxes even more, because we're hostage to their whims or something.
 
2014-03-25 10:40:07 AM  
MaoMart: We exploit cheap, communist (according to CIA.gov) chinese labor so you don't have to!!


God, stockholders do love Freedom!
 
2014-03-25 10:40:17 AM  
They pay their employees too little to live to they have to live off food stamps at taxpayer expense then these same employees go and purchase food from walmart with the food stamps so they get a double benefit, slave wage labor that wouldn't exist without taxpayer subsidizing them and the food stamps themselves.
 
2014-03-25 10:40:39 AM  

SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.


yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?
 
2014-03-25 10:40:51 AM  
Much of this problem would be solved if some of these people would choose to stop being poor.
 
2014-03-25 10:41:08 AM  

doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.


Walmarts wages are above minimum. Typically 50 people show up to apply for every position.

The Other thing is that if that money were not being taxed or borrowed out of the economy, it would still exist....and it would still create economic activity. The fact that Obama is trying to funnel as much of the economy through the Government as possible to create dependence is the real topic here.

Perhaps some of those people could find jobs if we didnt have 38 Trillion dollars per year in Economic activity being prevented by regulation. Wages for the bottom 30% of Americas workforce represent something like a Trillion dollars of the GDP....so merely reducing targeted regulation by 3% could double those workers wages through normal economic forces like supply and demand.

But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.
 
2014-03-25 10:41:40 AM  
It's sort of like a national version of the company store. You get your food stamps from the government because Walmart doesn't pay you enough to eat, and then you spend your food stamps at Walmart because they drove out all the other grocers because they don't pay people enough to eat.
 
2014-03-25 10:42:01 AM  
If you're in favor of large corporations paying sub-standard wages you're also in favor of your tax dollars going towards welfare to fill in the gap between those wages and a living wage, whether or notyou are smart enough to understand it or honest enough to admit it.  Well the third option is you're a sociopath who says "f*ck em" but one usually hopes that sociopaths don't get to drive policy.
 
2014-03-25 10:42:14 AM  

MFAWG: SovietCanuckistan: Is Walmart Black and poor?

Just their employees.


Zing
 
2014-03-25 10:43:11 AM  

doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.


Haven't you ever loved anything so much you crippled it so it couldn't get away to be with anyone else?
 
2014-03-25 10:44:12 AM  
Is this where we say; Oh SNAP
 
2014-03-25 10:45:08 AM  
WalMart: we've reached a new low in unbridled crony capitalism in 'murica.


you're welcome!
 
2014-03-25 10:46:14 AM  

Hobodeluxe: that should be an embarrassment to every American. That our largest corporations and our richest family is on welfare.


Mrs.Sharpier: Wal-Mart CEOs, Presidents and Board of Directors should have to undergo drug tests every month. Also, they shouldn't spend their billions on lobster, cigarettes or soda.

Rep Paul Ryan is going to have a field day going after Wal-Mart! Right?


Lots of win right at the start of this thread...good job guys :)
 
2014-03-25 10:46:39 AM  

SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.


Brilliant!   throw the baby out with the bathwater.  as long as its not your baby.   i smell a republican again.  well done!
 
2014-03-25 10:46:41 AM  

archichris: But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-25 10:46:54 AM  
Become?
 
2014-03-25 10:47:14 AM  

Rwa2play: Y-you mean the Republicans cunning plan to starve the country is coming back to bite the ass of one of it's bigger benefactors?


Yes. Without doubling of the foid stamp program under obama, americans were going to starve to death. A 4% cut after an 80% growth is certain death. Ignore the fact that fraud and abuse was larger than the estimated cuts, starvation would be the result.

What utter ignorance.
 
2014-03-25 10:48:34 AM  

Carn: If you're in favor of large corporations paying sub-standard wages you're also in favor of your tax dollars going towards welfare to fill in the gap between those wages and a living wage, whether or notyou are smart enough to understand it or honest enough to admit it.  Well the third option is you're a sociopath who says "f*ck em" but one usually hopes that sociopaths don't get to drive policy.


You've never heard of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul or FOX News, have you?
 
2014-03-25 10:48:52 AM  
There is nothing more communist than capitalist America. I first noticed this when McDonald's was handing out uniforms and stars to employees in the seventies and enforced sameness across locations, outfits and product. it hasn't changed since then.
American capitalists are the big equalizers: We are all the same just not before the government but before our corporate gods.
 
2014-03-25 10:48:58 AM  
Finally we figured out what is trickling down...food stamps.

Reaganomics is a success!
 
2014-03-25 10:49:16 AM  

MyRandomName: More proof liberal policies are really the corporate welfare.



yea, when i think of huge mega corporations in 'murica who own (because they can afford it) our  Legislators, i think of Liberal policies.   brilliant!  no one can fool you!
 
2014-03-25 10:49:16 AM  

archichris: doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.

Walmarts wages are above minimum. Typically 50 people show up to apply for every position.

The Other thing is that if that money were not being taxed or borrowed out of the economy, it would still exist....and it would still create economic activity. The fact that Obama is trying to funnel as much of the economy through the Government as possible to create dependence is the real topic here.

Perhaps some of those people could find jobs if we didnt have 38 Trillion dollars per year in Economic activity being prevented by regulation. Wages for the bottom 30% of Americas workforce represent something like a Trillion dollars of the GDP....so merely reducing targeted regulation by 3% could double those workers wages through normal economic forces like supply and demand.

But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.


Is this satire?
 
2014-03-25 10:49:27 AM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


My other love is that the mention of "walmart is often the largest private employer with the most employees on government assistance" in these articles. What's usually left out, state employees are number 1 in many cases. But, state employees make too much, right?
 
2014-03-25 10:50:19 AM  

Hobodeluxe: yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?


60 million people to get a job and not be bums?
 
2014-03-25 10:50:20 AM  
Walmart and the US Military: A match made in heaven.
 
2014-03-25 10:50:43 AM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


Welcome to America. Pretty much all service member's wives work, like everyone else in the working class, and when they get laid off, they wind up on food stamps. The pay structure is set up for new recruits who are 18 and single; married service members with dependents get some additional bennies like a housing allowance, but it's not enough to make up for the additional expense.

Still, an E-1 makes more than $18,000 a year in base pay alone; that's the equivalent of $9 per hour. Not bad money for an 18-year-old with only a high school diploma, and if you make your expected promotions, you can retire in 20 years when you'll be making over $50k per year in base pay. And if you're married and living, say, in Mobile, AL, you get an extra $1,000 a month as an E-1 for housing. So that's $30k per year, or the equivalent of $15 an hour. The housing allowance goes up with rank, just like pay, and promotion up to E-3 is basically automatic.

America's troops are not underpaid, but some of them have more expenses than they can afford on one fairly decent wage.
 
2014-03-25 10:50:51 AM  
I will accept both Welfare & EBT cards with great pride. Thank you.
 
2014-03-25 10:51:17 AM  
We've known this for a while.

Just wait.  The farmers will start complaining next.
 
2014-03-25 10:51:23 AM  
How about instead of you the taxpayer paying to support Walmart workers, Walmart does.
 
2014-03-25 10:51:35 AM  

hinten: There is nothing more communist than capitalist America. I first noticed this when McDonald's was handing out uniforms and stars to employees in the seventies and enforced sameness across locations, outfits and product. it hasn't changed since then.
American capitalists are the big equalizers: We are all the same just not before the government but before our corporate gods.



Under a capitalist system, man exploits man.
under a communist one, its just the opposite.  --renowned american economist john kenneth gabraith.
 
2014-03-25 10:52:26 AM  
Mmmm...food stamps...

rlv.zcache.com
 
2014-03-25 10:52:52 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: How about instead of you the taxpayer paying to support Walmart workers, Walmart does.


but that's un'murican!   that's unfreemarket capitalism!
 
2014-03-25 10:52:56 AM  

Mrs.Sharpier: Wal-Mart CEOs, Presidents and Board of Directors should have to undergo drug tests every month. Also, they shouldn't spend their billions on lobster, cigarettes or soda.

Rep Paul Ryan is going to have a field day going after Wal-Mart! Right?



Hillary Clinton was the first woman on the Board of Directors.   She was integral to the growth and direction of Walmart... and helped make it what it is today.      We should be glad to have such a successful company that grew from humble beginnings in the South.    With a little help from some key politicians.
 
2014-03-25 10:53:36 AM  

LazyMedia: what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.

Welcome to America. Pretty much all service member's wives work, like everyone else in the working class, and when they get laid off, they wind up on food stamps. The pay structure is set up for new recruits who are 18 and single; married service members with dependents get some additional bennies like a housing allowance, but it's not enough to make up for the additional expense.

Still, an E-1 makes more than $18,000 a year in base pay alone; that's the equivalent of $9 per hour. Not bad money for an 18-year-old with only a high school diploma, and if you make your expected promotions, you can retire in 20 years when you'll be making over $50k per year in base pay. And if you're married and living, say, in Mobile, AL, you get an extra $1,000 a month as an E-1 for housing. So that's $30k per year, or the equivalent of $15 an hour. The housing allowance goes up with rank, just like pay, and promotion up to E-3 is basically automatic.

America's troops are not underpaid, but some of them have more expenses than they can afford on one fairly decent wage.


I dunno, I think we should pay those guys a bit more than that.  I know they get hazard pay (they do get hazard pay right?!?!?) when deployed, but they should be getting a bit more given the risk they are assumed to be taking.

It might save us money in the long run to pay them more.  The increase in GDP might be worth it all by itself.

I'd take a reduction in forces too, but a guy can dream.
 
2014-03-25 10:53:46 AM  

Over_Zealously_Apathetic: Finally we figured out what is trickling down...food stamps.

Reaganomics is a success!


lol
 
2014-03-25 10:53:51 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-25 10:54:01 AM  

jayphat: What's usually left out, state employees are number 1 in many cases. But, state employees make too much, right?


WTF are you talking about?

/Citations required, otherwise you're just spewing ass juice.
 
2014-03-25 10:54:46 AM  

anuran: Carn: If you're in favor of large corporations paying sub-standard wages you're also in favor of your tax dollars going towards welfare to fill in the gap between those wages and a living wage, whether or notyou are smart enough to understand it or honest enough to admit it.  Well the third option is you're a sociopath who says "f*ck em" but one usually hopes that sociopaths don't get to drive policy.

You've never heard of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul or FOX News, have you?


I said hope.  Maybe wish would be better.  After 20 years of derp, and 30+ years of de-regulation and pro-crony-capitalism, I'm hoping we can have a couple years where rational thought and actual facts can drive dialogue.  This will probably happen right after I find my unicorn and/or leprechaun and pot of gold.

Institute the $10.10 minimum wage across the board (including for servers) and start a new Federal Works Projects Agency to rebuild our infrastructure.  Those two things will do wonders for our economy.
 
2014-03-25 10:55:09 AM  

Linux_Yes: MaoMart: We exploit cheap, communist (according to CIA.gov) chinese labor so you don't have to!!


God, stockholders do love Freedom!


communism is good as long as capitalists can exploit them too.
 
2014-03-25 10:55:10 AM  

Linux_Yes: Brilliant!   throw the baby out with the bathwater.  as long as its not your baby.   i smell a republican again.  well done!


Do people still throw out bath water?  I mean, isn't easier just to let it go down the drain?  Babies don't go down drains very well...
 
2014-03-25 10:56:12 AM  
I'm curious who the 'shareholders' getting all this profit are.
It certainly isn't those of use who have stock holding in our retirement accounts--Walmart's dividend yield is 2.5%, which would give you just enough to live on if you invested $1 million.
 
NFA
2014-03-25 10:56:23 AM  
archichris: "if that money were not being taxed or borrowed out of the economy"
"if we didnt have 38 Trillion dollars per year in Economic activity being prevented by regulation
 "

Taxed or borrowed out of the economy? Where the hell do you think that money goes?  It goes to pay debts (to wealthy T-bill holders) and to pay the wages of over a millions of federal employees, the wages of US military personnel and millions of contractors and businesses doing business with the government.  All of which use it to buy cars, homes, food, gas, etc. etc. etc   The government also spends it on supplies and equipment made by American companies.  

Why do you think the tea party stopped talking about shutting down the government?  It's because American corporations lost billions of dollars by not doing business with the federal government.

The 38 trillion number?  Yeah someone pulled that straight out of their ass.
 
2014-03-25 10:56:29 AM  
Hey, it's this thread again. Always interesting to see the people who most strongly support these programs get butthurt because they are working as designed.
 
2014-03-25 10:56:49 AM  

toadist: Don't know if Walmart is,   but 1 in 6 Americans are dependent on food stamps.

And then there are those on private charities and food banks.


Since half of its stores' income comes from grocery and its clientele are largely lower income americans, I'd say that foodstamps account for a significant portion of its revenue.  Can Walmart survive without the government teat?  Only shareholders know for sure.
 
2014-03-25 10:57:41 AM  
Hasn't that always been true?  Even if you take away the many SNAP customers, Wal-Mart's low wages are largely supported by the fact that their employees get extra help from the government to afford food.

Wal-Mart has been one of the nation's biggest welfare queen for a long, long time.
 
2014-03-25 10:57:57 AM  
It's spelled Walmart, not Wal-Mart. It's right there in the f*cking picture.
 
2014-03-25 10:58:16 AM  
Why does a guy like Ryan have any serious traction at all?  In a sane, grown up society, Ryan would be a clown brought out to tell a few stupid jokes before the big boys and girls got down to serious business.
 
2014-03-25 10:58:48 AM  
Wal-Mart's pay scale isn't really the problem. The real problem is the explosion of "temporary" and part-time jobs, which are identical to full-time jobs except managers carefully monitor the number of hours you work to keep it low enough that they're not required to pay benefits. Most Wal-Mart workers could live on their paychecks if they could get 40 hours per week.

Temp work should be restricted to actual temporary employment. Companies should be prevented from filling three full-time jobs with five people just to dodge paying bennies. This would be an easy fix if Republicans didn't control the House.
 
2014-03-25 10:59:16 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: ZAZ: any business accepting food stamps has to pay its workers $15 per hour

Huh.  I'm sure there are many unintended consequences that will be pointed out to me, but at first glance, I'd support that businesses accepting food stamps should pay $10.10.


Specifically targeting the places where the poor shop and increasing their prices seems like a bad idea.


Better increase the minimum wage in general.
 
2014-03-25 10:59:18 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Is this satire?


How could it be?  The premise is so rock-solid: if we reduce regulation in this country to the tune of +$1T in economic impact, all the benefit will go to low-level employees, thus doubling their take-home pay.

Isn't that how businesses always react to windfalls?

Never mind that our $15T+ GDP is being held back by a factor of 240% by regulations... it all seems airtight.
 
2014-03-25 11:00:23 AM  

archichris: But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.


Yes that's it!  You've discovered our cunning plan.

/Watchout.  Those clever cons are on to us.
 
2014-03-25 11:00:31 AM  

Carn: anuran: Carn: If you're in favor of large corporations paying sub-standard wages you're also in favor of your tax dollars going towards welfare to fill in the gap between those wages and a living wage, whether or notyou are smart enough to understand it or honest enough to admit it.  Well the third option is you're a sociopath who says "f*ck em" but one usually hopes that sociopaths don't get to drive policy.

You've never heard of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul or FOX News, have you?

I said hope.  Maybe wish would be better.  After 20 years of derp, and 30+ years of de-regulation and pro-crony-capitalism, I'm hoping we can have a couple years where rational thought and actual facts can drive dialogue.  This will probably happen right after I find my unicorn and/or leprechaun and pot of gold.

Institute the $10.10 minimum wage across the board (including for servers) and start a new Federal Works Projects Agency to rebuild our infrastructure.  Those two things will do wonders for our economy.


You are making sense in a gov't/Walmart/food stamps thread. No good can come from this
 
2014-03-25 11:00:51 AM  

BMFPitt: Hey, it's this thread again. Always interesting to see the people who most strongly support these programs get butthurt because they are working as designed.


What welfare program is "designed" to support healthy Americans working full-time for a profitable corporation? There shouldn't be one. If you are a for-profit company and any kind of government benefit adds to your bottom line, you should be mandated to pay your employees above the poverty line for that location.
 
2014-03-25 11:01:01 AM  
I don't think people know how this works? If low/mid-range wages go up the working poor who don't qualify for food stamps and such will no longer be able to shop even at Wal-mart because Wal-mart will raise their prices. Then businesses will lay people off which will put even more stress on the welfare system.

Things will then adjust themselves and the dust will settle. What will be left will be a even BIGGER gap between the working poor and rich (making more money) but things now cost more. The upper middle class will never be able to get ahead and will not be able to retire until 70.

Why do we keep doing this? It's not working.  How about champing around bringing real jobs back to America? Not vilifying fast food and the Wal-marts of the world that have always been teen jobs or part time extra money jobs. These are people who want to work yet can't find anything and or are unqualified. These are not high skilled jobs meant to support families. If we bring back jobs then maybe households will be able to pay a little more for things and buy American again.
 
2014-03-25 11:01:04 AM  
People spend food stamps at one of the largest supermarket chain in the nation, what's next Ric is water wet or is fire hot?
 
2014-03-25 11:01:08 AM  
Since it appears nobody bothered to read the actual article, what is actually being stated by WalMart is that their revenues are influenced by the amount of SNAP benefits being spent at its stores, and that if the SNAP programs are cut then WalMart will likely see a drop in revenue as spending decreases.

The GOP's plan to bring about a good economy fails when they take away spending power, and poor people get to starve as a side effect.
 
2014-03-25 11:02:52 AM  

archichris: doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.

Walmarts wages are above minimum. Typically 50 people show up to apply for every position.

The Other thing is that if that money were not being taxed or borrowed out of the economy, it would still exist....and it would still create economic activity. The fact that Obama is trying to funnel as much of the economy through the Government as possible to create dependence is the real topic here.

Perhaps some of those people could find jobs if we didnt have 38 Trillion dollars per year in Economic activity being prevented by regulation. Wages for the bottom 30% of Americas workforce represent something like a Trillion dollars of the GDP....so merely reducing targeted regulation by 3% could double those workers wages through normal economic forces like supply and demand.

But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.


Walmart does pay above minimum for some jobs. but some states have higher minimums that the federal min. and they still pay below poverty level wages which means that their employees qualify for assistance. What that says is that :

a) the federal minimum wage is way too low
b) that the Wal Mart business model depends on the govt. to work therefore is a failure of true capitalism.

as for your assertion that 38 trillion dollars a year is being thwarted by regulations well that's just poppycock.
what is hurting us on jobs is that we now trade with anyone with no regards for living wages,work conditions etc.
there was a time when we wouldn't do that and we would force them to come up to our level.
but that was before all the "free trade" legislation that let our corporations exploit those 3rd world laborers and resources.
they are dragging us down to their level. not the other way around
 
Ant [TotalFark]
2014-03-25 11:02:53 AM  
1) Move into small town that contains many small, family-owned mom-and-pop stores selling various products.
2) Undercut prices of mom-and-pop shops with cheap Chinese crap. Take a loss if necessary.
3) When mom-and-pops go out of business and all competition is gone, hire workers and owners at low wages that make food stamps a necessity.
4) Profit?
 
2014-03-25 11:03:01 AM  
Wal-Mart's annual report, issued late last week, puts a different spin on things. Buried within the long list of risk factors disclosed to its shareholders--that is, factors "outside our control" that could materially affect financial performance--are these: "changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, (and) changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans."

So Teabagger politics could affect your bottom line because you pay such shiatty wages?
But handing out food stamp applications to your workers seemed like a good idea at the time.
 
2014-03-25 11:04:03 AM  

factoryconnection: Never mind that our $15T+ GDP is being held back by a factor of 240% by regulations... it all seems airtight.


If companies could just dump toxic waste directly into the soil it would make poor people 20 billion dollars a year, study it out libs.
 
2014-03-25 11:04:20 AM  
So, let me get this right, Wal-Mart pays their workers wages so low that many of the workers have to go on welfare to make ends meet. Wal-Mart does this in order to keep profits for their shareholders up. Passing the burden of keeping their workers going goes to the government. Now the government has cut welfare programs including things like foodstamps. Thing is, Wal-Mart was seeing profit from foodstamps and now is upset with the government for cutting their profits. So, a huge chunk of their profits was essentially coming from milking the teat of the government in two ways; profits from paying low wages and profits from their workers spending government given funds in their stores.

How the hell are these people are considered job creators? How much do they pay in taxes? If you consider how much they get back in government funds though programs like foodstamps with how much they give in paychecks, is there much of a profit loss on their part?

And if they can do this, what is next? How else will they find a way to milk the government for more money?
 
2014-03-25 11:04:30 AM  

meat0918: I dunno, I think we should pay those guys a bit more than that. I know they get hazard pay (they do get hazard pay right?!?!?) when deployed, but they should be getting a bit more given the risk they are assumed to be taking.


They get hazardous duty pay, combat pay, and pay is tax-free in combat zones.  Also: advancement among junior enlisted is expected to proceed regularly, usually to E-4 within 12-36 months (depending on specialty, schooling, and service) UNLESS you f*ck up and end up before the commanding officer.
 
2014-03-25 11:04:39 AM  

Headso: factoryconnection: Never mind that our $15T+ GDP is being held back by a factor of 240% by regulations... it all seems airtight.

If companies could just dump toxic waste directly into the soil it would make poor people 20 billion dollars a year, study it out libs.


oh wait my bad, 20 TRILLION dollars a year.
 
2014-03-25 11:05:02 AM  

Hobodeluxe: that should be an embarrassment to every American. That our largest corporations and our richest family is on welfare.


Abolish Earned Income Credit, it's just a taxpayer subsidy of minimum wage.
 
2014-03-25 11:05:36 AM  
Become? WalMart was the welfare queen this entire time.

And you all are all suspicious of Shaniqua. WalMart is the one with the diamond-encrusted spinnerz.
 
2014-03-25 11:06:15 AM  

Dog Welder: Since it appears nobody bothered to read the actual article, what is actually being stated by WalMart is that their revenues are influenced by the amount of SNAP benefits being spent at its stores, and that if the SNAP programs are cut then WalMart will likely see a drop in revenue as spending decreases.

The GOP's plan to bring about a good economy fails when they take away spending power, and poor people get to starve as a side effect.


Nah, you don't get at all, do you?  Cut food stamps benefits per family and Walmart's earnings go down causing Walmart to reduce the number of employees who will then qualify for food stamps, and the newly impoverished will  shop at Walmart.

Same amount of sales + fewer workers = Profit!
 
2014-03-25 11:06:17 AM  

Headso: If companies could just dump toxic waste directly into the soil it would make poor people 20 billion dollars a year, study it out libs.


Yeah, you should see the property values' skyrocket at my waterfront pad in Love Canal.  Or was it Charleston, WV?
 
2014-03-25 11:06:24 AM  

Headso: factoryconnection: Never mind that our $15T+ GDP is being held back by a factor of 240% by regulations... it all seems airtight.

If companies could just dump toxic waste directly into the soil it would make poor people 20 billion dollars a year, study it out libs.


Hey, no need to bring fracking into the discussion.
 
2014-03-25 11:08:27 AM  

factoryconnection: what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.

Junior enlisted paygrades are low in pay because they're expected to be trainees.  When you enlist with a few kids, or enlist and then knock up the first girl that bats her eyes at you in an off-base bar you're going to struggle.  However, advancement is fairly regular early on and there are always time-in-service pay raises.  Furthermore, military families get free healthcare, subsidized groceries, tax-free housing and subsistence allowances, or they get base housing.  Yes some junior enlisted personnel with kids end up using SNAP, but they are not the general case unlike Wal-Mart.


My brother enlisted and got married right out of basic, and he and his wife did fine on his pay and allowances. They weren't living large, but they always had a roof over their heads, they ate well and had medical care provided by the base. I have to wonder if some of the military families just applied for food stamps so they could pocket the food allowance money and spend it on cigarettes and beer, because unless you enlist with a small litter of kids you should be fine with the basic necessities all paid for.

If you know someone in the service there are all sorts of ways to stretch the allowance money. For example, my brother roomed with two other guys after his divorce, and they were all getting a $800 or so housing allowance so they rented a three bedroom house for $1600 a month and pocketed the extra $800 for beer money.
 
2014-03-25 11:09:40 AM  

Galius_Persnickety: I'm curious who the 'shareholders' getting all this profit are.
It certainly isn't those of use who have stock holding in our retirement accounts--Walmart's dividend yield is 2.5%, which would give you just enough to live on if you invested $1 million.


Ha ha, sucker, you think Wal-Mart gives a crap about people who hold less than $1 million of its common stock? The chairman of Wal-Mart is worth $33 billion. At 2.5 percent, assuming all his money was in Wal-Mart stock, he'd be making $825 million a year. The Walton family owns more than half the company; that's who's getting rich. Six of them hold more wealth than the bottom 30 percent of Americans.

They are just the worst people in the world, too. You don't have to be a money-grubbing scumbag just because you inherited a lot of money, but they seem dedicated to it.
 
2014-03-25 11:10:10 AM  

factoryconnection: what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.

Junior enlisted paygrades are low in pay because they're expected to be trainees.  When you enlist with a few kids, or enlist and then knock up the first girl that bats her eyes at you in an off-base bar you're going to struggle.  However, advancement is fairly regular early on and there are always time-in-service pay raises.  Furthermore, military families get free healthcare, subsidized groceries, tax-free housing and subsistence allowances, or they get base housing.  Yes some junior enlisted personnel with kids end up using SNAP, but they are not the general case unlike Wal-Mart.



This is *exactly* the same argument for not raising minimum wage for entry-level employees.
 
2014-03-25 11:10:11 AM  
Walmart isn't hooked on food stamps; it's hooked on global exploitation of workers through low wages and benefits, illegal labor practices, and corruption.

The federal government just helps keep the Walmart victims from revolting.
 
2014-03-25 11:10:52 AM  

mekki: How the hell are these people are considered job creators?


Actually, they're really "wealth creators." A subtle but important difference because they don't create wealth for ordinary people.
And by "ordinary people" I mean people who don't own platinum-shafted polo mallets or buy jets made out of diamonds and veal.
 
2014-03-25 11:12:55 AM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


Are you of the mindset that farkers aren't massively critical of the way our military doles out millions to buddies and friends in contractor roles, and underpays the people who actually put their lives on the line?

I haven't seen a single thread dealing with military pay where farkers haven't supportive of paying the enlistees more.
 
2014-03-25 11:13:41 AM  
Galius_Persnickety:  I'm curious who the 'shareholders' getting all this profit are.
It certainly isn't those of use who have stock holding in our retirement accounts--Walmart's dividend yield is 2.5%, which would give you just enough to live on if you invested $1 million.


                                           img2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-03-25 11:13:47 AM  

NutWrench: mekki: How the hell are these people are considered job creators?

Actually, they're really "wealth creators." A subtle but important difference because they don't create wealth for ordinary people.
And by "ordinary people" I mean people who don't own platinum-shafted polo mallets or buy jets made out of diamonds and veal.


I prefer "wealth transferers".
 
2014-03-25 11:13:59 AM  
The issue is MUCH bigger than food stamps. Wal-Mart's labor practices also depend on welfare. Wal-Mart pioneered the use of in-house social workers to enroll their own employees into government programs like food stamps and rental assistance for the purpose of using the social safety net to pay a portion of the employee's living expenses.  The result is that they have a stable mature workforce for the price of teenagers. Sure, their employees are low-motivation types but do you really think ambitious people will work as store drones for any extended period anyway?  Walmart stuff's employee paychecks with a flyer that has an 800 number for a 24-hour service called Resources for Living. They have a nationwide list of all charities that use enrollment in food stamps as an automatic qualifier to receive services and they can also hook you up with a list of every food bank, including religious ones, within a 50 mile radius of any walmart store.  The worst is when they hire indigent low skill (no skill) types from the state programs that pay half the wages for the first six months of employment... these individuals are typically fired for (imaginary) cause at the beginning of the seventh month.
 
2014-03-25 11:14:39 AM  

BMFPitt: Hey, it's this thread again. Always interesting to see the people who most strongly support these programs get butthurt because they are working as designed.


To be clear, I support food stamps because nobody should go hungry. I support a reasonable minimum wage because nobody who works 40 hours a week should need food stamps.
 
2014-03-25 11:15:12 AM  

Mad_Radhu: factoryconnection: what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.

Junior enlisted paygrades are low in pay because they're expected to be trainees.  When you enlist with a few kids, or enlist and then knock up the first girl that bats her eyes at you in an off-base bar you're going to struggle.  However, advancement is fairly regular early on and there are always time-in-service pay raises.  Furthermore, military families get free healthcare, subsidized groceries, tax-free housing and subsistence allowances, or they get base housing.  Yes some junior enlisted personnel with kids end up using SNAP, but they are not the general case unlike Wal-Mart.

My brother enlisted and got married right out of basic, and he and his wife did fine on his pay and allowances. They weren't living large, but they always had a roof over their heads, they ate well and had medical care provided by the base. I have to wonder if some of the military families just applied for food stamps so they could pocket the food allowance money and spend it on cigarettes and beer, because unless you enlist with a small litter of kids you should be fine with the basic necessities all paid for.

If you know someone in the service there are all sorts of ways to stretch the allowance money. For example, my brother roomed with two other guys after his divorce, and they were all getting a $800 or so housing allowance so they rented a three bedroom house for $1600 a month and pocketed the extra $800 for beer money.


The "litter of kids" is the usual scenario for troops on food stamps. There are only about 4,000 military members using food stamps, out of 1.3 million people on uniformed active duty.
 
2014-03-25 11:17:05 AM  
Um, not sure where cutting food stamps comes from. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/snapsummary.htm

2008:  Total food stamp benefits (not program cost, but payments to people)  $38B. /  Benefit per person per month $102.19
2012:  $75B  / $133.41
2013:  $76B / $133.07

A pack of gum less per month plus 33% more per month than 5 years ago and more than double total benefits paid than five years ago.  OH THE HUMANITY!
 
2014-03-25 11:17:22 AM  

Hobodeluxe: that should be an embarrassment to every American. That our largest corporations and our richest family is on welfare.


We're an embarrassment to the planet.
 
2014-03-25 11:18:15 AM  

CivicMindedFive: Um, not sure where cutting food stamps comes from.


An expiration of the temporary increase in benefits that passed with the 2009 stimulus.
 
2014-03-25 11:18:16 AM  

doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.


How exactly do they drive wages lower?
 
2014-03-25 11:19:02 AM  
Just wait until Wal Mart goes to full robots for everything.
 
2014-03-25 11:19:04 AM  

drb9: factoryconnection: what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.

Junior enlisted paygrades are low in pay because they're expected to be trainees.  When you enlist with a few kids, or enlist and then knock up the first girl that bats her eyes at you in an off-base bar you're going to struggle.  However, advancement is fairly regular early on and there are always time-in-service pay raises.  Furthermore, military families get free healthcare, subsidized groceries, tax-free housing and subsistence allowances, or they get base housing.  Yes some junior enlisted personnel with kids end up using SNAP, but they are not the general case unlike Wal-Mart.


This is *exactly* the same argument for not raising minimum wage for entry-level employees.


The difference is that military people at all pay grades got a huge pay increase over the past decade. Most of those "troops on food stamps" stories are from the '80s and '90s.
 
2014-03-25 11:19:27 AM  
I can't tell what is satire and what is real in this thread. Somebody hold me.
 
2014-03-25 11:20:16 AM  

meat0918: LazyMedia: what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.

Welcome to America. Pretty much all service member's wives work, like everyone else in the working class, and when they get laid off, they wind up on food stamps. The pay structure is set up for new recruits who are 18 and single; married service members with dependents get some additional bennies like a housing allowance, but it's not enough to make up for the additional expense.

Still, an E-1 makes more than $18,000 a year in base pay alone; that's the equivalent of $9 per hour. Not bad money for an 18-year-old with only a high school diploma, and if you make your expected promotions, you can retire in 20 years when you'll be making over $50k per year in base pay. And if you're married and living, say, in Mobile, AL, you get an extra $1,000 a month as an E-1 for housing. So that's $30k per year, or the equivalent of $15 an hour. The housing allowance goes up with rank, just like pay, and promotion up to E-3 is basically automatic.

America's troops are not underpaid, but some of them have more expenses than they can afford on one fairly decent wage.

I dunno, I think we should pay those guys a bit more than that.  I know they get hazard pay (they do get hazard pay right?!?!?) when deployed, but they should be getting a bit more given the risk they are assumed to be taking.

It might save us money in the long run to pay them more.  The increase in GDP might be worth it all by itself.

I'd take a reduction in forces too, but a guy can dream.


I'd like to see them be able to get actual treatment for any issues they come back from deployment with, as well as knocking down all of the stigma surrounding a diagnosis of PTSD. I'm so tired of the homeless vet meme.
 
2014-03-25 11:21:19 AM  

factoryconnection: what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.

Junior enlisted paygrades are low in pay because they're expected to be trainees.  When you enlist with a few kids, or enlist and then knock up the first girl that bats her eyes at you in an off-base bar you're going to struggle.  However, advancement is fairly regular early on and there are always time-in-service pay raises.  Furthermore, military families get free healthcare, subsidized groceries, tax-free housing and subsistence allowances, or they get base housing.  Yes some junior enlisted personnel with kids end up using SNAP, but they are not the general case unlike Wal-Mart.


This.

I'm sorry whatnow, but you're just out of the ballpark wrong wrong wrong when you compare military compensation to Wal-Mart compensation. Other than a complete void of personal responsibility, there is no reason anyone in the armed services needs to rely on SNAP.

When I was very young, base housing on the army base where I lived sucked ass. When I was 20, I visited my girlfriend in the air force at Fort Walton Beach. She lived in base housing there: it was superior by far to anything most 20 year olds could afford. It's been awhile, but if memory serves, she didn't pay any rent to live there.

I'm of the understanding that base housing at the army base near where I grew up has been upgraded, and is now pretty decent.

Maybe armed forces personnel need a raise. Maybe not. I dunno. I do know that comparing their financial circumstances to those of Wal-Mart workers is just wrong.
 
2014-03-25 11:21:33 AM  

Dog Welder: Since it appears nobody bothered to read the actual article, what is actually being stated by WalMart is that their revenues are influenced by the amount of SNAP benefits being spent at its stores, and that if the SNAP programs are cut then WalMart will likely see a drop in revenue as spending decreases.

The GOP's plan to bring about a good economy fails when they take away spending power, and poor people get to starve as a side effect.


As someone who's family was on food stamps and government cheese for most of my adolescent life, who's girlfriend throughout highschool was living in subsidized housing with her part-time-work-only mom and 2 siblings, I can say this:  In America, you have to choose to go hungry if you're poor.

That choice might be expressed by spending money on cable and trading benefits for cash to buy lottery tickets, but you have to deliberately make those choices.  As the mexican immigrants say, "In America, even the poor people are fat."

So it makes good copy, but it's not true that the poor people starve.  Not unless they want to.
 
2014-03-25 11:21:37 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: ZAZ: any business accepting food stamps has to pay its workers $15 per hour

Huh.  I'm sure there are many unintended consequences that will be pointed out to me, but at first glance, I'd support that businesses accepting food stamps should pay $10.10.


Why?  This simply overpays people in one part of the country and does nothing to help others.

In my neck of the woods, nobody would even get out of bed for $10.10 an hour, not even the paperboy.

Unemployment should be done at the state level, if not the county level.
 
2014-03-25 11:21:51 AM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.



What? Fark ar you going on about? When I watch those commercials, the kid goes right from some computerized but safe looking battlefield into a corporate boardroom where the same skill set will apparently make him wealthy. The military is just a stepping stone to a better life! I mean...when you're not getting shot at in a hellhole 4,000 miles from your child.
 
2014-03-25 11:22:13 AM  
static.giantbomb.com
 
2014-03-25 11:22:47 AM  
Slavery is alive and well in America.

Ya know, I hope they do cancel food stamps and every other form of welfare. Cut benefits to veterans, cut funding to police and fire departments, cut any kind of social assistance, fark the healthcare system to hell and back, and deregulate everything.  Do it. DO IT! And then we'll see just how fast you can run motherfarker. Guarantee not all of ya will make it out of the country before the lynch mob gets ahold of ya.
 
2014-03-25 11:26:41 AM  

firefly212: BMFPitt: Hey, it's this thread again. Always interesting to see the people who most strongly support these programs get butthurt because they are working as designed.

To be clear, I support food stamps because nobody should go hungry. I support a reasonable minimum wage because nobody who works 40 hours a week should need food stamps.


People need to start the race at the same point, not finish it at the same point.
 
2014-03-25 11:27:08 AM  

Hobodeluxe: SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.

yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?


Use the money saved to buy anti-personnel rounds.
 
2014-03-25 11:27:37 AM  

TheWhoppah: The issue is MUCH bigger than food stamps. Wal-Mart's labor practices also depend on welfare.  Wal-Mart pioneered the use of in-house social workers to enroll their own employees into government programs like food stamps and rental assistance for the purpose of using the social safety net to pay a portion of the employee's living expenses.  The result is that they have a stable mature workforce for the price of teenagers. Sure, their employees are low-motivation types but do you really think ambitious people will work as store drones for any extended period anyway?  Walmart stuff's employee paychecks with a flyer that has an 800 number for a 24-hour service called Resources for Living. They have a nationwide list of all charities that use enrollment in food stamps as an automatic qualifier to receive services and they can also hook you up with a list of every food bank, including religious ones, within a 50 mile radius of any walmart store.  The worst is when they hire indigent low skill (no skill) types from the state programs that pay half the wages for the first six months of employment... these individuals are typically fired for (imaginary) cause at the beginning of the seventh month.


This is utter and complete bullshiat. Not only does my son work at wally World but so do my niece, her fiance, and my nephew. Not one has ever seen the "flyer" you are on about or heard of "in house" social workers.
 
2014-03-25 11:28:02 AM  

quietwalker: As someone who's family was on food stamps and government cheese for most of my adolescent life, who's girlfriend throughout highschool was living in subsidized housing with her part-time-work-only mom and 2 siblings, I can say this: In America, you have to choose to go hungry if you're poor.

That choice might be expressed by spending money on cable and trading benefits for cash to buy lottery tickets, but you have to deliberately make those choices. As the mexican immigrants say, "In America, even the poor people are fat."

So it makes good copy, but it's not true that the poor people starve. Not unless they want to.


Good point. You know what poverty is like. You were on food stamps. You were on welfare. But did anyone come along and help you out? No. So it makes perfect sense to cut food stamps now.
 
2014-03-25 11:29:07 AM  

MemeSlave: firefly212: BMFPitt: Hey, it's this thread again. Always interesting to see the people who most strongly support these programs get butthurt because they are working as designed.

To be clear, I support food stamps because nobody should go hungry. I support a reasonable minimum wage because nobody who works 40 hours a week should need food stamps.

People need to start the race at the same point, not finish it at the same point.


OK, so then you're in favor of a steep inheritance tax, right? And free college? We're just lining up the starting gates here.
 
2014-03-25 11:29:19 AM  

Dog Welder: Since it appears nobody bothered to read the actual article, what is actually being stated by WalMart is that their revenues are influenced by the amount of SNAP benefits being spent at its stores, and that if the SNAP programs are cut then WalMart will likely see a drop in revenue as spending decreases.

The GOP's plan to bring about a good economy fails when they take away spending power, and poor people get to starve as a side effect.


That's what I figured it was about.

What is often left unsaid is many WalMart regular employees are also food stamp recipients, and unless they've changed the policy, WalMart offers a discount on goods purchased by employees, so guess where those employees do the majority of their grocery shopping?

Good old WalMart.

WalMart directly benefits from food stamps in more ways than one.
 
2014-03-25 11:29:36 AM  

Hobodeluxe: SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.

yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?


You mean solutions?

farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2014-03-25 11:30:09 AM  
As the song goes: "It's free. Swipe yo EBT!"

http://youtu.be/xLTTX35LNJo
 
2014-03-25 11:30:32 AM  
quietwalker:

So it makes good copy, but it's not true that the poor people starve.  Not unless they want to.

Hell, even at that, food pantries and churches will give you more food than you can eat anyway. You can't live among the "poor" and feel bad for them.
 
2014-03-25 11:31:00 AM  
You want to raise the wages of the working poor and stick it to giant corporations like Walmart, halt all immigration for a while. Not just illegal, but legal immigration as well.

Let this sink in for a minute, 2008-2013, the number of net jobs created:  Aproox 1.2M.  For the same period, the number of legal immigrants:  Approx  2.5M.  That's not counting the millions who immigrated illegally.
 
2014-03-25 11:31:06 AM  
A third of all bank tellers in this country rely on government assistance.  Of course, the banks own Obama so he will not speak against them, thus there will be no pressure from the left to fix this.


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-04/a-third-of-bank-tell er s-rely-on-government-assistance-study-says
 
2014-03-25 11:31:17 AM  
Is WalMart one of those companies that strictly limits many of their employees to 28 hours a week to avoid paying benefits?  If so, food stamp subsidies is just the beginning.  They are going to be eligible for Obamacare subsidies as well, most likely 100%.  I'm guessing there are already a bunch of WalMart employees on Medicaid.  Seems like just the beginning.
 
2014-03-25 11:32:22 AM  

quietwalker: Dog Welder: Since it appears nobody bothered to read the actual article, what is actually being stated by WalMart is that their revenues are influenced by the amount of SNAP benefits being spent at its stores, and that if the SNAP programs are cut then WalMart will likely see a drop in revenue as spending decreases.

The GOP's plan to bring about a good economy fails when they take away spending power, and poor people get to starve as a side effect.

As someone who's family was on food stamps and government cheese for most of my adolescent life, who's girlfriend throughout highschool was living in subsidized housing with her part-time-work-only mom and 2 siblings, I can say this:  In America, you have to choose to go hungry if you're poor.

That choice might be expressed by spending money on cable and trading benefits for cash to buy lottery tickets, but you have to deliberately make those choices.  As the mexican immigrants say, "In America, even the poor people are fat."

So it makes good copy, but it's not true that the poor people starve.  Not unless they want to.


Now subtract the kids, and see what benefits you can get.  Here in VA, that means sleeping on a park bench and hoping some church is running a soup kitchen that week.
 
2014-03-25 11:32:57 AM  

Hobodeluxe: that should be an embarrassment to every American. That our largest corporations and our richest family is on welfare.


What a load. If we are going to pay out billions of welfare dollars a month to keep the Democrats in power, someone besides them better be getting rich in the process.

We're handing out $84B a month in corporate welfare to the banks and Wall St., and you're complaining about food stamps.
 
2014-03-25 11:32:59 AM  

meat0918: Dog Welder: Since it appears nobody bothered to read the actual article, what is actually being stated by WalMart is that their revenues are influenced by the amount of SNAP benefits being spent at its stores, and that if the SNAP programs are cut then WalMart will likely see a drop in revenue as spending decreases.

The GOP's plan to bring about a good economy fails when they take away spending power, and poor people get to starve as a side effect.

That's what I figured it was about.

What is often left unsaid is many WalMart regular employees are also food stamp recipients, and unless they've changed the policy, WalMart offers a discount on goods purchased by employees, so guess where those employees do the majority of their grocery shopping?

Good old WalMart.

WalMart directly benefits from food stamps in more ways than one.


The employee discount at wally world is 10% on everything except clearance items and groceries.
 
2014-03-25 11:33:40 AM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


Look, if you're a 22 year old E3 with four kids and a mom on dialysis, there's only so far that $20K/yr goes, but it's still about 33% higher than minimum wage. I don't know about the other branches, but the Army bends over backwards to make sure soldiers are financially afloat.

That said, during my sergeant days, I had a couple of soldiers with financial difficulties and credit going into death spirals - that I had to counsel as part of my job. In both cases, I started with the fact that they were driving vehicles that cost roughly twice what my own car did. There are unbelievable resources out there for military members, if you have the slightest motivation to fix your financial problems.
 
2014-03-25 11:33:40 AM  

Nemo's Brother: Of course, the banks own Obama so he will not speak against them, thus there will be no pressure from the left to fix this.


The right wing would like to know: Why hasn't Obama fixed a problem we care nothing about?
 
2014-03-25 11:33:56 AM  

Mad_Radhu: factoryconnection: what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.

Junior enlisted paygrades are low in pay because they're expected to be trainees.  When you enlist with a few kids, or enlist and then knock up the first girl that bats her eyes at you in an off-base bar you're going to struggle.  However, advancement is fairly regular early on and there are always time-in-service pay raises.  Furthermore, military families get free healthcare, subsidized groceries, tax-free housing and subsistence allowances, or they get base housing.  Yes some junior enlisted personnel with kids end up using SNAP, but they are not the general case unlike Wal-Mart.

My brother enlisted and got married right out of basic, and he and his wife did fine on his pay and allowances. They weren't living large, but they always had a roof over their heads, they ate well and had medical care provided by the base. I have to wonder if some of the military families just applied for food stamps so they could pocket the food allowance money and spend it on cigarettes and beer, because unless you enlist with a small litter of kids you should be fine with the basic necessities all paid for.

If you know someone in the service there are all sorts of ways to stretch the allowance money. For example, my brother roomed with two other guys after his divorce, and they were all getting a $800 or so housing allowance so they rented a three bedroom house for $1600 a month and pocketed the extra $800 for beer money.


Why do the type of people that enlist in the army feel so compelled to marry right away?  My step brother did the same thing. He joined the army because he was a biatch that got beat up by my petite step-sister and he thought this would make him a man. Of course, he got a divorce too.  Such a boring cliche.
 
2014-03-25 11:33:58 AM  

Nemo's Brother: A third of all bank tellers in this country rely on government assistance.  Of course, the banks own Obama so he will not speak against them, thus there will be no pressure from the left to fix this.


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-04/a-third-of-bank-tell er s-rely-on-government-assistance-study-says


Terrific point. Because libs won't do anything to help bank tellers, nobody should be concerned for the well-being of Wal-Mart's customers and employees.
 
2014-03-25 11:37:05 AM  

Dwindle: quietwalker:

So it makes good copy, but it's not true that the poor people starve.  Not unless they want to.

Hell, even at that, food pantries and churches will give you more food than you can eat anyway. You can't live among the "poor" and feel bad for them.


Not if you're a sociopath lacking all empathy, you can't. I'll give you that one.
 
2014-03-25 11:37:14 AM  

SovietCanuckistan: Is Walmart Black and poor?


Rev. Al, you're a Farker
 
2014-03-25 11:37:32 AM  

clkeagle: BMFPitt: Hey, it's this thread again. Always interesting to see the people who most strongly support these programs get butthurt because they are working as designed.

What welfare program is "designed" to support healthy Americans working full-time for a profitable corporation? There shouldn't be one. If you are a for-profit company and any kind of government benefit adds to your bottom line, you should be mandated to pay your employees above the poverty line for that location.


But that's the thing: they aren't full-time. Walmart intentionally limits hours to prevent having to pay benefits, reducing the employees effective wage to the point that they also, incidentally, qualify for foodstamps.
 
2014-03-25 11:38:02 AM  
Pretty sure it's the employees who are dependant on the food stamps. But hey we should totally be mad at Wal Mart since the people they hire have so few valuable skills they have to work for minimum wage and collect food stamps. Wal Mart should stop hiring people like that so they can all live the dream.
 
2014-03-25 11:38:20 AM  

MemeSlave: firefly212: BMFPitt: Hey, it's this thread again. Always interesting to see the people who most strongly support these programs get butthurt because they are working as designed.

To be clear, I support food stamps because nobody should go hungry. I support a reasonable minimum wage because nobody who works 40 hours a week should need food stamps.

People need to start the race at the same point, not finish it at the same point.


I'm not saying everyone should finish at the same point and we should all by communists... I'm saying starting the race should mean that nobody starves to death in the richest country in the world. I'm also saying that if you work 40 hours a week, you should be making enough to provide basic food, healthcare, and shelter to your family... nobody's saying finish the race at the same point, except for you.
 
2014-03-25 11:38:21 AM  

MFAWG: SovietCanuckistan: Is Walmart Black and poor?

Just their employees customers.


FTFY
 
2014-03-25 11:39:13 AM  
Just Modern American Capitalism 101 - socialize the risks and costs, privatize the profits - untaxed, to the degree possible.
 
2014-03-25 11:40:28 AM  
dascott:

Now subtract the kids, and see what benefits you can get.  Here in VA, that means sleeping on a park bench and hoping some church is running a soup kitchen that week.

Sure, that's why people mass produce kids in the first place.

However, women always get bennies. It's not much, but it keeps a roof over their head. Food pantries are plentiful, but you have to be in a central town.

Of course if you're a single guy, you're shiat out of luck. That's why most homeless people are men.
 
2014-03-25 11:41:09 AM  
Become? It has been for a long time. You would be hard pressed to find any corporation or individual that is not receiving some form of government assistance in the United States. The real tragedy is most people don't even understand that they are receiving government assistance in the form of tax brakes, subsidized insurance, etc....
 
2014-03-25 11:41:11 AM  

Kevin Lomax: Pretty sure it's the employees who are dependant on the food stamps. But hey we should totally be mad at Wal Mart since the people they hire have so few valuable skills they have to work for minimum wage and collect food stamps. Wal Mart should stop hiring people like that so they can all live the dream.


And while we're at it, we should pack up jobs they would have filled and send them to other countries, leaving all of those people with limited options.
 
2014-03-25 11:41:13 AM  

CivicMindedFive: You want to raise the wages of the working poor and stick it to giant corporations like Walmart, halt all immigration for a while. Not just illegal, but legal immigration as well.

Let this sink in for a minute, 2008-2013, the number of net jobs created:  Aproox 1.2M.  For the same period, the number of legal immigrants:  Approx  2.5M.  That's not counting the millions who immigrated illegally.


That's the nationalist theory, but it really wouldn't improve anything. Immigrants work harder than lazy-ass American kids, and create more wealth for everyone. Personally, I'd trade Lindsey Lohan for Lupita Nyongo any day.
 
2014-03-25 11:42:08 AM  
15.9 million children lived in food insecure households in 2012.[ii]
20% or more of the child population in 37 states and D.C. lived in food insecure households in 2011, according to the most recent data available. New Mexico (30.6%) and the District of Columbia (30.0%) had the highest rates of children in households without consistent access to food.[iii]
In 2011, the top five states with the highest rate of food insecure children under 18 are New Mexico, the District of Columbia, Arizona, Oregon, and Georgia.[iv]

Dwindle: You can't live among the "poor" and feel bad for them.


Wow.
 
2014-03-25 11:42:30 AM  

Kevin Lomax: Pretty sure it's the employees who are dependant on the food stamps. But hey we should totally be mad at Wal Mart since the people they hire have so few valuable skills they have to work for minimum wage and collect food stamps. Wal Mart should stop hiring people like that so they can all live the dream.


i18.photobucket.com
That'll get you a few.
 
2014-03-25 11:43:35 AM  

Kevin Lomax: Pretty sure it's the employees who are dependant on the food stamps. But hey we should totally be mad at Wal Mart since the people they hire have so few valuable skills they have to work for minimum wage and collect food stamps. Wal Mart should stop hiring people like that so they can all live the dream.


Stop blaming the workers.
 
2014-03-25 11:45:25 AM  

Yellow Beard: TheWhoppah: The issue is MUCH bigger than food stamps. Wal-Mart's labor practices also depend on welfare. Wal-Mart pioneered the use of in-house social workers to enroll their own employees into government programs like food stamps and rental assistance for the purpose of using the social safety net to pay a portion of the employee's living expenses.  The result is that they have a stable mature workforce for the price of teenagers. Sure, their employees are low-motivation types but do you really think ambitious people will work as store drones for any extended period anyway?  Walmart stuff's employee paychecks with a flyer that has an 800 number for a 24-hour service called Resources for Living. They have a nationwide list of all charities that use enrollment in food stamps as an automatic qualifier to receive services and they can also hook you up with a list of every food bank, including religious ones, within a 50 mile radius of any walmart store.  The worst is when they hire indigent low skill (no skill) types from the state programs that pay half the wages for the first six months of employment... these individuals are typically fired for (imaginary) cause at the beginning of the seventh month.

This is utter and complete bullshiat. Not only does my son work at wally World but so do my niece, her fiance, and my nephew. Not one has ever seen the "flyer" you are on about or heard of "in house" social workers.



This image ring any bells?
www.rfl.com
See also:  http://www.ehow.com/list_6513786_benefits-working-wal_mart.html
 
2014-03-25 11:45:40 AM  

Yellow Beard: meat0918: Dog Welder: Since it appears nobody bothered to read the actual article, what is actually being stated by WalMart is that their revenues are influenced by the amount of SNAP benefits being spent at its stores, and that if the SNAP programs are cut then WalMart will likely see a drop in revenue as spending decreases.

The GOP's plan to bring about a good economy fails when they take away spending power, and poor people get to starve as a side effect.

That's what I figured it was about.

What is often left unsaid is many WalMart regular employees are also food stamp recipients, and unless they've changed the policy, WalMart offers a discount on goods purchased by employees, so guess where those employees do the majority of their grocery shopping?

Good old WalMart.

WalMart directly benefits from food stamps in more ways than one.

The employee discount at wally world is 10% on everything except clearance items and groceries.


Thank you.  I was told by an employee it was on everything.  Granted, this was over a decade ago.
 
2014-03-25 11:45:43 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Walmart and the US Military: A match made in heaven.


Keep the economy down causing kids no choice but to join the military and shop at Walmart.
 
2014-03-25 11:46:04 AM  

MechaPyx: Slavery is alive and well in America.

Ya know, I hope they do cancel food stamps and every other form of welfare. Cut benefits to veterans, cut funding to police and fire departments, cut any kind of social assistance, fark the healthcare system to hell and back, and deregulate everything.  Do it. DO IT! And then we'll see just how fast you can run motherfarker. Guarantee not all of ya will make it out of the country before the lynch mob gets ahold of ya.


It is indeed. And it's not for the hourly worker. Allow me to copy/paste something from months back I read that highlights where the real slavery is: retail management.

Be careful gonna get a lot of those "well change jobs" "get out of retail". Retail management is almost like a black hole, you start doing it in your mid 20's while your trying to figure out what you want to do or trying to get a job in your field of study, being a hard worker you are good at your job and you move up, the money is decent as you are single and heck the job is fun, lot of cute girls, go out with your co-workers or fellow mall workers after work. depending on where you work, a store discount and some great stuff. then you move up to store manager and the money becomes a bit better and now your married with a kid well the hours suck but you have bills to pay and your spouse is taking classes for her/his career.
10-15 years later you are pushing 40, the company you work for has been sold twice, the store business hours have gone from 76 hours open a week to 95 hours open and instead of having a salaried assistant manager they are now limited to 50 hours a week due to some class action lawsuits where the DM were working their assistance 6 days a week and 70 hours doing mainly non-managerial duties. So instead of your 50 hours a week you are now working 60 hours a week except during the Christmas holidays were you are now working 95 hours a week and hey you even have to work thanksgiving.
You want to get out but hard to find a job since so many people think retail workers are idiots (we look at a lot of folks who work non retail jobs as slackers since we are used to getting a lot done on a daily basis). or not sure whatelse you can do after so many years stuck in the retail grind. Moving up out of the store. sure no store to go to but now with wonderful cell phones and laptops you are pretty much working 24/7 and due to a prior DM and or regional boss who feels its best to replace the a lot of the older managers with some young talent (most of who suck and don't want the hours) you are now taking stupid calls at 9 pm. on "what do i do i'm $5 short in the drawer or how do I correct the incorrect voided ticket"...really?
 
2014-03-25 11:47:00 AM  

Dwindle: dascott:

Now subtract the kids, and see what benefits you can get.  Here in VA, that means sleeping on a park bench and hoping some church is running a soup kitchen that week.

Sure, that's why people mass produce kids in the first place.

However, women always get bennies. It's not much, but it keeps a roof over their head. Food pantries are plentiful, but you have to be in a central town.

Of course if you're a single guy, you're shiat out of luck. That's why most homeless people are men.


Wouldn't it be nice if we weren't encouraging people to poop out kids they can't afford, and instead extended benefits to all poor people and possibly save money in the long run?  Food stamps and condoms for all.
 
2014-03-25 11:47:26 AM  

MemeSlave: firefly212: BMFPitt: Hey, it's this thread again. Always interesting to see the people who most strongly support these programs get butthurt because they are working as designed.

To be clear, I support food stamps because nobody should go hungry. I support a reasonable minimum wage because nobody who works 40 hours a week should need food stamps.

People need to start the race at the same point, not finish it at the same point.


Yes, because people on food stamps finish at the same point as their multi-billionaire employers.

Meanwhile, in reality, such programs only barely get most of these people to the starting line, and the people who've already finished are biatching about giving them even that.
 
2014-03-25 11:47:28 AM  

quietwalker: Dog Welder: Since it appears nobody bothered to read the actual article, what is actually being stated by WalMart is that their revenues are influenced by the amount of SNAP benefits being spent at its stores, and that if the SNAP programs are cut then WalMart will likely see a drop in revenue as spending decreases.

The GOP's plan to bring about a good economy fails when they take away spending power, and poor people get to starve as a side effect.

As someone who's family was on food stamps and government cheese for most of my adolescent life, who's girlfriend throughout highschool was living in subsidized housing with her part-time-work-only mom and 2 siblings, I can say this:  In America, you have to choose to go hungry if you're poor.

That choice might be expressed by spending money on cable and trading benefits for cash to buy lottery tickets, but you have to deliberately make those choices.  As the mexican immigrants say, "In America, even the poor people are fat."

So it makes good copy, but it's not true that the poor people starve.  Not unless they want to.


Having been poor, even homeless at one point... you're full of shiat. Ya, you had a bit of a rough go, but no, you weren't at rock bottom for what America has to offer. You don't know what it is to cut a doughnut in half so it can be both breakfast and dinner. When I finally managed to land a job (which is hard when you have no phone and no address), my boss bought me breakfast on my first day... an egg mcmuffin thing from dunkin donuts (I don't know what they call them). I ate three bites, and I couldn't eat any more, because I was so full... I just couldn't finish that little frickin thing for the life of me because I'd been undereating for so long. At 5'9, I was 112 lbs. In America, the truly poor are invisible, not fat.
 
2014-03-25 11:48:25 AM  

SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.


Go back to commodities and force people to have to pick them up in person.  You damned well know that shiat will change in a hurry.  Between businesses no longer having the government tit to suck on and the torches and pitchfork crowd demanding things change something will happen.

My bet is a lot of people that are living high on the hog with welfare will turn to crime because they lack the work ethic to get a job like decent people.
 
2014-03-25 11:48:46 AM  

Hobodeluxe: SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.

yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?


You ever notice that the same demographic that they say are 'hungry' they then claim are victims of 'obesity'.

First they want to give them free soda, then they want to eliminate soda because it makes them fat.
 
2014-03-25 11:50:37 AM  

DecemberNitro: It's spelled Walmart, not Wal-Mart. It's right there in the f*cking picture.


It used to be Wal-Mart, so the confusion is understandable.

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

pronkpapers.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-25 11:50:51 AM  

meat0918: I dunno, I think we should pay those guys a bit more than that.  I know they get hazard pay (they do get hazard pay right?!?!?) when deployed, but they should be getting a bit more given the risk they are assumed to be taking.


$18,000 is their paycheck... they also get free healthcare,  free food and free housing.  When you factor in the benefits, it ends up being way more than just the base pay.
 
2014-03-25 11:51:33 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.

Go back to commodities and force people to have to pick them up in person.  You damned well know that shiat will change in a hurry.  Between businesses no longer having the government tit to suck on and the torches and pitchfork crowd demanding things change something will happen.

My bet is a lot of people that are living high on the hog with welfare will turn to crime because they lack the work ethic to get a job like decent people.


Stop making sense. You'll get laughed right out of this thread.
 
2014-03-25 11:52:59 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: archichris: doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.

Walmarts wages are above minimum. Typically 50 people show up to apply for every position.

The Other thing is that if that money were not being taxed or borrowed out of the economy, it would still exist....and it would still create economic activity. The fact that Obama is trying to funnel as much of the economy through the Government as possible to create dependence is the real topic here.

Perhaps some of those people could find jobs if we didnt have 38 Trillion dollars per year in Economic activity being prevented by regulation. Wages for the bottom 30% of Americas workforce represent something like a Trillion dollars of the GDP....so merely reducing targeted regulation by 3% could double those workers wages through normal economic forces like supply and demand.

But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.

Is this satire?


I don't think so. I think he wrote it while riding on the short bus on the way to school.
 
2014-03-25 11:53:26 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: Hasn't that always been true?  Even if you take away the many SNAP customers, Wal-Mart's low wages are largely supported by the fact that their employees get extra help from the government to afford food.

Wal-Mart has been one of the nation's biggest welfare queen for a long, long time.


This. Not paying local taxes helps too.
 
2014-03-25 11:53:32 AM  

Alonjar: meat0918: I dunno, I think we should pay those guys a bit more than that.  I know they get hazard pay (they do get hazard pay right?!?!?) when deployed, but they should be getting a bit more given the risk they are assumed to be taking.

$18,000 is their paycheck... they also get free healthcare,  free food and free housing.  When you factor in the benefits, it ends up being way more than just the base pay.


Tax free, right?
 
2014-03-25 11:54:13 AM  

Dwindle: women always get bennies.


No, they don't. Welfare reform in the '90s means you get two years of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, life time, total. Use that up, and you're in the same boat as a single man.

Fortunately, the vast majority of able-bodied people who get welfare or food stamps wind up eventually getting a job and moving off benefits. The "perpetual welfare" myth today applies only to old and disabled people. There's a fair amount of fraud in the disability area, but it's not like you should tell the majority of disabled or old people to just be more boot-strappy, and cut their benefits.
 
2014-03-25 11:54:27 AM  

mike_d85: Hobodeluxe: SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.

yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?

You mean solutions?

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 640x490]


cdn.images.express.co.uk
 
2014-03-25 11:54:38 AM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


Yeah, but most other companies don't have there food stamp employees turn around and spend all the food stamp money at their own business. It's pure profit for them, the food stamps are actually subsidizing the employee's pay on both ends.
 
2014-03-25 11:54:50 AM  
Living high on the hog on welfare, that's a good one.

Those people might exist, and we have a word for them: Criminals.
 
2014-03-25 11:56:09 AM  

MemeSlave: Hobodeluxe: that should be an embarrassment to every American. That our largest corporations and our richest family is on welfare.

Abolish Earned Income Credit, it's just a taxpayer subsidy of minimum wage.


you really don't know how this works do you?
 
2014-03-25 11:56:47 AM  

Nemo's Brother: Why do the type of people that enlist in the army feel so compelled to marry right away?  My step brother did the same thing. He joined the army because he was a biatch that got beat up by my petite step-sister and he thought this would make him a man. Of course, he got a divorce too.  Such a boring cliche.


In their case, he enlisted and then about two months before he shipped out to Basic he met her and they fell in love. She was worried that he'd leave her while he was away, so she talked him into marrying her as soon as he graduated basic so they could get married housing.

Unfortunately, she was a bit of an implosive flake, so she wound up cheating on him. Luckily for him, he was able to get divorced without owing her a dime, and she left before they had kids so in the end it all worked out about as well as a starter marriage can.
 
2014-03-25 11:57:49 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: living high on the hog with welfare


Drink!
 
2014-03-25 11:58:24 AM  

dascott: Living high on the hog on welfare, that's a good one.

Those people might exist, and we have a word for them: Criminals.


And here I thought we called them the WalMart Board of Directors.
 
2014-03-25 11:58:30 AM  

Nemo's Brother: A third of all bank tellers in this country rely on government assistance.  Of course, the banks own Obama so he will not speak against them, thus there will be no pressure from the left to fix this.


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-04/a-third-of-bank-tell er s-rely-on-government-assistance-study-says


Did you read the first paragraph of the article you linked?
 
2014-03-25 11:58:54 AM  

Soup4Bonnie: 15.9 million children lived in food insecure households in 2012.


Yeah, in other words, they get a big fat stack of food stamps every month, that they use at Bodegas to buy liquor, smokes, and lottery tickets.

Or they sell them on Craigslist.

Again, you live among these people, you don't feel a shred of pity for them, except their children.
Of course, they all grow up to be exactly the same.
 
2014-03-25 11:59:18 AM  
No surprise there. It's their demographic.

http://peopleofwalmart.com/
 
2014-03-25 11:59:56 AM  

Galius_Persnickety: I'm curious who the 'shareholders' getting all this profit are.
It certainly isn't those of use who have stock holding in our retirement accounts--Walmart's dividend yield is 2.5%, which would give you just enough to live on if you invested $1 million.


The plan is you supplement that with food stamps and medicare. Walmart depends on govt support.
 
2014-03-25 12:00:05 PM  

LazyMedia: Dwindle: women always get bennies.

No, they don't. Welfare reform in the '90s means you get two years of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, life time, total. Use that up, and you're in the same boat as a single man.

Fortunately, the vast majority of able-bodied people who get welfare or food stamps wind up eventually getting a job and moving off benefits. The "perpetual welfare" myth today applies only to old and disabled people. There's a fair amount of fraud in the disability area, but it's not like you should tell the majority of disabled or old people to just be more boot-strappy, and cut their benefits.


I thought TANF was two continuous years at a time, up to a lifetime total of 5 years?
 
2014-03-25 12:00:27 PM  

dascott: Living high on the hog on welfare, that's a good one.

Those people might exist, and we have a word for them: Criminals.


They are actually jealous of people living at the bottom off the barrel in squalor because they get to eat.
/and they probably have refrigerators to keep all that free lobster and tenderloin in too.
 
2014-03-25 12:00:46 PM  

svanmeter: Hobodeluxe: SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.

yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?

You ever notice that the same demographic that they say are 'hungry' they then claim are victims of 'obesity'.

First they want to give them free soda, then they want to eliminate soda because it makes them fat.


soda costs less than water in some instances. and processed food that's bad for you is more expensive than fresh fruit and vegetables.
 
2014-03-25 12:01:49 PM  

ShadowKamui: People spend food stamps at one of the largest supermarket chain in the nation, what's next Ric is water wet or is fire hot?


Leave it to you to complete miss the entire point.
 
2014-03-25 12:02:50 PM  

Hobodeluxe: svanmeter: Hobodeluxe: SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.

yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?

You ever notice that the same demographic that they say are 'hungry' they then claim are victims of 'obesity'.

First they want to give them free soda, then they want to eliminate soda because it makes them fat.

soda costs less than water in some instances. and processed food that's bad for you is more less expensive than fresh fruit and vegetables.


ftfm
 
2014-03-25 12:05:21 PM  

Yellow Beard: TheWhoppah: The issue is MUCH bigger than food stamps. Wal-Mart's labor practices also depend on welfare.  Wal-Mart pioneered the use of in-house social workers to enroll their own employees into government programs like food stamps and rental assistance for the purpose of using the social safety net to pay a portion of the employee's living expenses.  The result is that they have a stable mature workforce for the price of teenagers. Sure, their employees are low-motivation types but do you really think ambitious people will work as store drones for any extended period anyway?  Walmart stuff's employee paychecks with a flyer that has an 800 number for a 24-hour service called Resources for Living. They have a nationwide list of all charities that use enrollment in food stamps as an automatic qualifier to receive services and they can also hook you up with a list of every food bank, including religious ones, within a 50 mile radius of any walmart store.  The worst is when they hire indigent low skill (no skill) types from the state programs that pay half the wages for the first six months of employment... these individuals are typically fired for (imaginary) cause at the beginning of the seventh month.

This is utter and complete bullshiat. Not only does my son work at wally World but so do my niece, her fiance, and my nephew. Not one has ever seen the "flyer" you are on about or heard of "in house" social workers.


Did you just now talk to your son, your niece, her fiance, and your nephew to ask them? Or have you looked at the paychecks of your son, your niece, her fiance, and your nephew?
 
2014-03-25 12:06:43 PM  

Dwindle: Yeah, in other words, they get a big fat stack of food stamps every month,


You don't actually know how SNAP works, do you.
 
2014-03-25 12:07:32 PM  

Hobodeluxe: that should be an embarrassment to every American. That our largest corporations and our richest family is on welfare.


It works for England...
 
2014-03-25 12:07:38 PM  
Wal-Mart doesn't have an obligation to keep it's workforce fed and clothed. They make no such agreement when you hire on to take a job with them. They agree to pay you a fair wage for bottom rung unskilled labor. The issue is people making careers out of jobs that aren't met to be careers.
 
2014-03-25 12:07:48 PM  

Hobodeluxe: that should be an embarrassment to every American. That our largest corporations and our richest family is on welfare.


We should drug test all of their executives and managers monthly until they get their act together
 
2014-03-25 12:08:03 PM  
Headline lede worded wrong ..

'Obama, King Of Welfare. Obey Or Don't Eat.'
 
2014-03-25 12:08:15 PM  

LazyMedia: Fortunately, the vast majority of able-bodied people who get welfare or food stamps wind up eventually getting a job and moving off benefits. The "perpetual welfare" myth today applies only to old and disabled people.


You're hilarious. Most of the people I know on welfare have been on welfare for over 20 years, most their entire lives. I know people in their 50's who have never had a job.

The two year rule only applies to Federal welfare, the state has to pick it up after that.

The whole point of welfare is to keep people out of the workforce and dependent on government. The Democrats flood every city nationwide with poor people who will vote for them to keep the benefits flowing. That is why they control almost every city in the nation.

More than 45% of people on welfare have been for over 2 years.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
That's not even including those on food stamps, disability, and unemployment.
 
2014-03-25 12:10:04 PM  

firefly212: MemeSlave: firefly212: BMFPitt: Hey, it's this thread again. Always interesting to see the people who most strongly support these programs get butthurt because they are working as designed.

To be clear, I support food stamps because nobody should go hungry. I support a reasonable minimum wage because nobody who works 40 hours a week should need food stamps.

People need to start the race at the same point, not finish it at the same point.

I'm not saying everyone should finish at the same point and we should all by communists... I'm saying starting the race should mean that nobody starves to death in the richest country in the world. I'm also saying that if you work 40 hours a week, you should be making enough to provide basic food, healthcare, and shelter to your family... nobody's saying finish the race at the same point, except for you.


The only people who starve to death in the US are children of welfare recipients who use their hand-outs to buy dope rather than food.  Link me to an article where someone who can walk and talk has starved to death here in the past 50 years.  Also, as has been pointed out up-thread, WalMart is like McD', BK, KFC, etc.  It's a starting point for kids, or a way for older people to pick up some walking around money.  I doubt very many people take a job there expecting to make a career out of it.  Don't like their policies, don't take a job there and don't shop there.  Never see so much whiny butt-hurt in any threads (politics tab excepted) than in the weekly "WalMart sucks threads.  For fark's sake, it's nobody's fault but your own that you can't get a better job.  Maybe instead of wasting all that money on a worthless BA in quilting you should have gone to trade school?   But no.  Let's all blame somebody else for our own shortcomings and demand people make $40K/year + Bennies for knowing how to stock shelves, and in which aisle I can find toilet paper.
 
2014-03-25 12:10:10 PM  

jayphat: what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.

My other love is that the mention of "walmart is often the largest private employer with the most employees on government assistance" in these articles. What's usually left out, state employees are number 1 in many cases. But, state employees make too much, right?


It's almost like it wouldn't give any useful information to talk about statistics for gov't/military employees that are paid with taxes when also talking about welfare benefits that are also paid with taxes. If you want to pay them more that's fine, but you can't act like it'll be a huge savings to taxpayers.
 
2014-03-25 12:11:14 PM  

EWreckedSean: Wal-Mart doesn't have an obligation to keep it's workforce fed and clothed. They make no such agreement when you hire on to take a job with them. They agree to pay you a fair wage for bottom rung unskilled labor. The issue is people making careers out of jobs that aren't met to be careers.


Exactly.  We need the majority of people to be the so called "biatch" while our wealthy benefactors tell us what to do and how to do it. We live to serve them.
 
2014-03-25 12:11:44 PM  

jst3p


Alonjar: meat0918: I dunno, I think we should pay those guys a bit more than that. I know they get hazard pay (they do get hazard pay right?!?!?) when deployed, but they should be getting a bit more given the risk they are assumed to be taking.

$18,000 is their paycheck... they also get free healthcare, free food and free housing. When you factor in the benefits, it ends up being way more than just the base pay.

Tax free, right?


No - IIRC base pay is taxed, and Base Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) and Base Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) are not taxed.

And I believe the base pay is not taxed when the servicemember is deployed outside CONUS but I don't recall all the details. (I was never deployed.)

meat0918: Hazardous Duty pay is generally limited to specific geographical areas. Not everyone is eligible.
 
2014-03-25 12:13:00 PM  

Dwindle: Soup4Bonnie: 15.9 million children lived in food insecure households in 2012.

Yeah, in other words, they get a big fat stack of food stamps every month, that they use at Bodegas to buy liquor, smokes, and lottery tickets.

Or they sell them on Craigslist.

Again, you live among these people, you don't feel a shred of pity for them, except their children.
Of course, they all grow up to be exactly the same.


As someone that lived among them and as one of them for a long time before finally finding lucrative work, go fark yourself.

I never, never witnessed this among my peers at the time.  They regularly busted their asses at work just to barely make ends meet.  There was also no such thing as a "big fat stack of food stamps".  It was rarely enough to make it through the month for a family of four.

Plus you stupid asshole, food stamps cannot buy liquor, smokes, and lottery tickets; and most definitely cannot be withdrawn at an ATM.

The worst I regularly saw was friends "splurging" (and I use the term loosely) a little for a kid's birthday, because god forbid a poor child has any fun, right?

The real worst I saw was this lily white* princess friend of my wife's from high school, a woman so put upon that she actually had to have food stamps after she left her husband because he wanted kids and she didn't.

She was putting on airs and keeping up appearances, getting $80 hair cuts and mani-pedis to "treat herself".  I think it was so she didn't look poor.  She was also a trainwreck of a human being, but that is beside the point.

*I chose that phrase very precisely
 
2014-03-25 12:13:20 PM  

Hobodeluxe: svanmeter: Hobodeluxe: SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.

yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?

You ever notice that the same demographic that they say are 'hungry' they then claim are victims of 'obesity'.

First they want to give them free soda, then they want to eliminate soda because it makes them fat.

soda costs less than water in some instances. and processed food that's bad for you is more expensive than fresh fruit and vegetables.


Yeay for missing the point. Let me spell it out for you: You want us to pay for them to freeload, then you want us to care when they become fat and lazy. ¡Carajo que hay brutos en esta página!
 
2014-03-25 12:13:40 PM  

Dwindle: Most of the people I know on welfare have been on welfare for over 20 years, most their entire lives. I know people in their 50's who have never had a job.


The ones getting "giant stacks of food stamps"? Actual, literal, stacks of food stamps. lulz.
 
2014-03-25 12:14:31 PM  

someonelse: Dwindle: Yeah, in other words, they get a big fat stack of food stamps every month,

You don't actually know how SNAP works, do you.


I used to work for a property management company, whose apartments were rented out almost exclusively to HUD recipients.

We had to fill out their paperwork for their welfare, disability, food stamps, unemployment, and immigration for every single family, every time they moved.

You wouldn't believe how many people who are too disabled to work can still go out to the clubs at night.

And yes, I know they don't literally get food stamps any more. They get a classy looking credit card because leaching off taxpayers shouldn't by undignified.
 
2014-03-25 12:14:33 PM  

meat0918: Plus you stupid asshole, food stamps cannot buy liquor, smokes, and lottery tickets; and most definitely cannot be withdrawn at an ATM.


That's the policy, the reality is usually a lot different...
 
2014-03-25 12:14:50 PM  

m1ke: Linux_Yes: Brilliant!   throw the baby out with the bathwater.  as long as its not your baby.   i smell a republican again.  well done!

Do people still throw out bath water?  I mean, isn't easier just to let it go down the drain?  Babies don't go down drains very well...


Yeah, but try telling THEM that. Those little bastards are terrified of getting sucked down.
 
2014-03-25 12:16:07 PM  

Dwindle: More than 45% of people on welfare have been for over 2 years.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/


And less than 20% over 5 years.


Dwindle: Most of the people I know on welfare have been on welfare for over 20 years,


Oh, you are full of shiat. I see.
 
2014-03-25 12:16:11 PM  

Dwindle: LazyMedia: Fortunately, the vast majority of able-bodied people who get welfare or food stamps wind up eventually getting a job and moving off benefits. The "perpetual welfare" myth today applies only to old and disabled people.

You're hilarious. Most of the people I know on welfare have been on welfare for over 20 years, most their entire lives. I know people in their 50's who have never had a job.

The two year rule only applies to Federal welfare, the state has to pick it up after that.

The whole point of welfare is to keep people out of the workforce and dependent on government. The Democrats flood every city nationwide with poor people who will vote for them to keep the benefits flowing. That is why they control almost every city in the nation.

More than 45% of people on welfare have been for over 2 years.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
That's not even including those on food stamps, disability, and unemployment.


Just when you thought you have found the most ignorant thing said on the internet, someone comes along and sets the bar even higher.
 
2014-03-25 12:16:25 PM  
Lotta angry, selfish little men, fussing and fuming on Fark this morning.
 
2014-03-25 12:18:06 PM  

jst3p: Dwindle: More than 45% of people on welfare have been for over 2 years.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

And less than 20% over 5 years.


Dwindle: Most of the people I know on welfare have been on welfare for over 20 years,

Oh, you are full of shiat. I see.


What I really love is how his anecdotes are gospel truth(while the stats show them to be false), while my anecdotes are suspect to the most extreme levels of suspicion.
 
2014-03-25 12:18:06 PM  

Headso: factoryconnection: Never mind that our $15T+ GDP is being held back by a factor of 240% by regulations... it all seems airtight.

If companies could just dump toxic waste directly into the soil it would make poor people 20 billion dollars a year, study it out libs.


Why not feed the toxic waste to the poor? Then they get free food, and die quickly. Double win!
 
2014-03-25 12:18:10 PM  

Dwindle: And yes, I know they don't literally get food stamps any more.


You didn't a few minutes ago when you wrote:  "Yeah, in other words, they get a big fat stack of food stamps every month,"

I wonder what percentage of what you've posted was pulled straight from your ass. I'm thinking about 85.
 
2014-03-25 12:18:23 PM  
I love it when these issue make the main page. The conservative derp is just glorious! Predictable....but glorious.
 
2014-03-25 12:18:48 PM  

archichris: doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.

Walmarts wages are above minimum. Typically 50 people show up to apply for every position.

The Other thing is that if that money were not being taxed or borrowed out of the economy, it would still exist....and it would still create economic activity. The fact that Obama is trying to funnel as much of the economy through the Government as possible to create dependence is the real topic here.

Perhaps some of those people could find jobs if we didnt have 38 Trillion dollars per year in Economic activity being prevented by regulation. Wages for the bottom 30% of Americas workforce represent something like a Trillion dollars of the GDP....so merely reducing targeted regulation by 3% could double those workers wages through normal economic forces like supply and demand.

But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.


You do realize that all the tax dollars that you are talking about are injected right back into the economy when the government purchases things with them. Right?

The dollars don't evaporate or get sent to an incinerator.
 
2014-03-25 12:19:09 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: jayphat: What's usually left out, state employees are number 1 in many cases. But, state employees make too much, right?

WTF are you talking about?

/Citations required, otherwise you're just spewing ass juice.


Ass juice, aisle 9.
 
2014-03-25 12:19:14 PM  
So much anecdotal evidence! Well since we're just going to throw out our own stories here goes: I work around wealthy people all day, every day.  Let me tell you, they are all assholes.  Every single last one of them.  I have proof of this, but I'd rather you all just took my word for it.
 
2014-03-25 12:19:23 PM  

archichris: The Other thing is that if that money were not being taxed or borrowed out of the economy, it would still exist....and it would still create economic activity. The fact that Obama is trying to funnel as much of the economy through the Government as possible to create dependence is the real topic here.


Actually, the "real topic here" is that the largest corporation in America, which generated $469 billion in revenue in 2013, and whose board members include 4 of the top 10 wealthiest Americans, intentionally built government public-assistance for their employees into their business model.

The other topic of interest is that uninformed stoops such as yourself leap to defend them as Sacred Job Creators every time the topic comes up.
 
2014-03-25 12:19:52 PM  

dascott: Dwindle: LazyMedia: Fortunately, the vast majority of able-bodied people who get welfare or food stamps wind up eventually getting a job and moving off benefits. The "perpetual welfare" myth today applies only to old and disabled people.

You're hilarious. Most of the people I know on welfare have been on welfare for over 20 years, most their entire lives. I know people in their 50's who have never had a job.

The two year rule only applies to Federal welfare, the state has to pick it up after that.

The whole point of welfare is to keep people out of the workforce and dependent on government. The Democrats flood every city nationwide with poor people who will vote for them to keep the benefits flowing. That is why they control almost every city in the nation.

More than 45% of people on welfare have been for over 2 years.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
That's not even including those on food stamps, disability, and unemployment.

Just when you thought you have found the most ignorant thing said on the internet, someone comes along and sets the bar even higher.


It isn't a unique thought. I listen to right wing radio (Sun Tzu, know your enemy) and that is one of their main thrusts against Democrats.

Social Safety nets aren't pushed but the left because the left wants to help people, it is because the left wants as much of the population dependent on government as possible. Once you are completely dependent on government then the left can control you.

Seriously, they say this regularly and they say it as if it as logical as 2+2=potato
 
2014-03-25 12:20:00 PM  
So if we increase the minimum wage then they shouldn't qualify for as much or any assistance. Do you think they're gonna be cool with that? No. They're gonna want the wage increase AND the food stamps.

/those people
 
2014-03-25 12:20:03 PM  

doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.


Do we love the Armed Services just as well?


Food Stamps: Military Families Redeem $100 Million A Year In SNAP Benefits
 
2014-03-25 12:21:03 PM  
Doesn't mean WalMart is awful (they are for other reasons).  But it does mean you shouldn't listen anytime WalMart or its bought and paid for legislators say shiat about minimum wage, unions, health care, the economy, or pretty much anything.

It also means we should take a hard look at which and how social services are being provided.  If you're working poor, that's still working, which is good.  What the country needs to provide is a social support network that will enable low-wage workers to still live, eat, have residence, health care, and the possibility of having kids that won't starve and die, as well as access to education.
 
2014-03-25 12:21:24 PM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: firefly212: MemeSlave: firefly212: BMFPitt: Hey, it's this thread again. Always interesting to see the people who most strongly support these programs get butthurt because they are working as designed.

To be clear, I support food stamps because nobody should go hungry. I support a reasonable minimum wage because nobody who works 40 hours a week should need food stamps.

People need to start the race at the same point, not finish it at the same point.

I'm not saying everyone should finish at the same point and we should all by communists... I'm saying starting the race should mean that nobody starves to death in the richest country in the world. I'm also saying that if you work 40 hours a week, you should be making enough to provide basic food, healthcare, and shelter to your family... nobody's saying finish the race at the same point, except for you.

The only people who starve to death in the US are children of welfare recipients who use their hand-outs to buy dope rather than food.  Link me to an article where someone who can walk and talk has starved to death here in the past 50 years.  Also, as has been pointed out up-thread, WalMart is like McD', BK, KFC, etc.  It's a starting point for kids, or a way for older people to pick up some walking around money.  I doubt very many people take a job there expecting to make a career out of it.  Don't like their policies, don't take a job there and don't shop there.  Never see so much whiny butt-hurt in any threads (politics tab excepted) than in the weekly "WalMart sucks threads.  For fark's sake, it's nobody's fault but your own that you can't get a better job.  Maybe instead of wasting all that money on a worthless BA in quilting you should have gone to trade school?   But no.  Let's all blame somebody else for our own shortcomings and demand people make $40K/year + Bennies for knowing how to stock shelves, and in which aisle I can find toilet paper.


Do they make bootstraps big enough for you?
 
2014-03-25 12:21:44 PM  

Dwindle: You wouldn't believe how many people who are too disabled to work can still go out to the clubs at night.


You worked for a property management company and you were aware of people's nighttime habits in the properties you managed? You lived on site and followed people when they went out? Did you go into the club to make sure they were dancing vigorously and/or carrying heavy objects rather than just sitting there? I'm not sure what you describe is legal. It borders on an invasion of privacy, wouldn't you say?
 
2014-03-25 12:21:51 PM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: firefly212: MemeSlave: firefly212: BMFPitt: Hey, it's this thread again. Always interesting to see the people who most strongly support these programs get butthurt because they are working as designed.

To be clear, I support food stamps because nobody should go hungry. I support a reasonable minimum wage because nobody who works 40 hours a week should need food stamps.

People need to start the race at the same point, not finish it at the same point.

I'm not saying everyone should finish at the same point and we should all by communists... I'm saying starting the race should mean that nobody starves to death in the richest country in the world. I'm also saying that if you work 40 hours a week, you should be making enough to provide basic food, healthcare, and shelter to your family... nobody's saying finish the race at the same point, except for you.

The only people who starve to death in the US are children of welfare recipients who use their hand-outs to buy dope rather than food.  Link me to an article where someone who can walk and talk has starved to death here in the past 50 years.  Also, as has been pointed out up-thread, WalMart is like McD', BK, KFC, etc.  It's a starting point for kids, or a way for older people to pick up some walking around money.  I doubt very many people take a job there expecting to make a career out of it.  Don't like their policies, don't take a job there and don't shop there.  Never see so much whiny butt-hurt in any threads (politics tab excepted) than in the weekly "WalMart sucks threads.  For fark's sake, it's nobody's fault but your own that you can't get a better job.  Maybe instead of wasting all that money on a worthless BA in quilting you should have gone to trade school?   But no.  Let's all blame somebody else for our own shortcomings and demand people make $40K/year + Bennies for knowing how to stock shelves, and in which aisle I can find toilet paper.


Exactly how many jobs do you think are available with good pay, as a percentage of population?  Guess what, if every last American went out and got an engineering degree tomorrow, you'd have a shiatload of engineers delivering pizzas and running cash registers.
 
2014-03-25 12:21:54 PM  

someonelse: Dwindle: And yes, I know they don't literally get food stamps any more.

You didn't a few minutes ago when you wrote:  "Yeah, in other words, they get a big fat stack of food stamps every month,"

I wonder what percentage of what you've posted was pulled straight from your ass. I'm thinking about 85.


85 seems low, I think he takes 100% straight out of his ass
 
2014-03-25 12:22:00 PM  

meat0918: jst3p: Dwindle: More than 45% of people on welfare have been for over 2 years.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

And less than 20% over 5 years.


Dwindle: Most of the people I know on welfare have been on welfare for over 20 years,

Oh, you are full of shiat. I see.

What I really love is how his anecdotes are gospel truth(while the stats show them to be false), while my anecdotes are suspect to the most extreme levels of suspicion.


Confirmation bias, he has it.

/That and I think he is flat out lying
 
2014-03-25 12:22:43 PM  
That's why I get my groceries at the local places with the unionized workforce.  I can only get 20% of the stuff for the same price, but something something union pride/fair wage.
 
2014-03-25 12:23:16 PM  

someonelse: Dwindle: You wouldn't believe how many people who are too disabled to work can still go out to the clubs at night.

You worked for a property management company and you were aware of people's nighttime habits in the properties you managed? You lived on site and followed people when they went out? Did you go into the club to make sure they were dancing vigorously and/or carrying heavy objects rather than just sitting there? I'm not sure what you describe is legal. It borders on an invasion of privacy, wouldn't you say?


He doesn't need facts, he knows what  feels truthy to him. That's good enough.
 
2014-03-25 12:23:29 PM  
So, according to the narrative, you have a healthy local town with it's own locally owned grocers, and then WalMart moves in, and the other stores go out of business, and WalMart becomes the largest employer and then lowers wages so employees can only afford to shop there.

So... why did those people choose to shop at WalMart in the first place and neglect their thriving local businesses? Isn't it sort of their fault for taking short term savings and ruining their local economy?
 
2014-03-25 12:25:10 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: archichris: doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.

Walmarts wages are above minimum. Typically 50 people show up to apply for every position.

The Other thing is that if that money were not being taxed or borrowed out of the economy, it would still exist....and it would still create economic activity. The fact that Obama is trying to funnel as much of the economy through the Government as possible to create dependence is the real topic here.

Perhaps some of those people could find jobs if we didnt have 38 Trillion dollars per year in Economic activity being prevented by regulation. Wages for the bottom 30% of Americas workforce represent something like a Trillion dollars of the GDP....so merely reducing targeted regulation by 3% could double those workers wages through normal economic forces like supply and demand.

But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.

Is this satire?


You have to ask if this is satire? Why, logic like you see just above is always 5/10 or 6/10. By the way archichris, you could have thrown in "4 out of 5 dentist recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum" just to ensure troll was obvious.
 
2014-03-25 12:25:21 PM  

Dwindle: Most of the people I know on welfare have been on welfare for over 20 years, most their entire lives.


Approximately how many people have you known for 20 years, and have known well enough to know they are on welfare that whole time? Ballpark estimate. And why were you privy to that information, exactly?
 
2014-03-25 12:25:27 PM  

GORDON: That's why I get my groceries at the local places with the unionized workforce.  I can only get 20% of the stuff for the same price, but something something union pride/fair wage.


These guys are union:

www.washingtonpost.com


I might only get 90% of what you could get for the same price at Walmart, but I am OK with that.
 
2014-03-25 12:26:46 PM  
meat0918:  Plus you stupid asshole, food stamps cannot buy liquor, smokes, and lottery tickets; and most definitely cannot be withdrawn at an ATM.

That's why they go to bodegas, which will accept food stamps for all purchases. There is no enforcement, and no paper trail. I have seen it done a hundred times. How do you think people in the hood afford $15 a day in cigarettes?

Why do you think Bodegas never have a POS system? Because if they had one,. it would record what was food and what was booze.

Of course, that doesn't even include the people smply selling them on line (about $750 million a year):
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/11/03/food-stamp-fraud-beneficia ri es-illegally-sell-ebt-cards-on-craigslist-social-media-sites/

Or the people who simply stand outside the supermarket and sell them as low as 50% on the dollar. They will even push the shopping cart and load them into your car for you, hoping to get a tip on top of the cash.
 
2014-03-25 12:28:15 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: So, according to the narrative, you have a healthy local town with it's own locally owned grocers, and then WalMart moves in, and the other stores go out of business, and WalMart becomes the largest employer and then lowers wages so employees can only afford to shop there.

So... why did those people choose to shop at WalMart in the first place and neglect their thriving local businesses? Isn't it sort of their fault for taking short term savings and ruining their local economy?


For the same reason that big box stores, I won't just demonize WalMart here, have used gasoline at their pumps as a loss leader and driven independent gas stations out of business in some small towns.  The competitor can't sell at cost and make it up with sales in the store.
 
2014-03-25 12:28:42 PM  

Dwindle: meat0918:  Plus you stupid asshole, food stamps cannot buy liquor, smokes, and lottery tickets; and most definitely cannot be withdrawn at an ATM.

That's why they go to bodegas, which will accept food stamps for all purchases. There is no enforcement, and no paper trail. I have seen it done a hundred times. How do you think people in the hood afford $15 a day in cigarettes?

Why do you think Bodegas never have a POS system? Because if they had one,. it would record what was food and what was booze.

Of course, that doesn't even include the people smply selling them on line (about $750 million a year):
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/11/03/food-stamp-fraud-beneficia ri es-illegally-sell-ebt-cards-on-craigslist-social-media-sites/

Or the people who simply stand outside the supermarket and sell them as low as 50% on the dollar. They will even push the shopping cart and load them into your car for you, hoping to get a tip on top of the cash.


You paint a frighting picture of welfare fraud. On the other hand you have lied repeatedly in this thread and have zero credibility.
 
2014-03-25 12:30:04 PM  
Stop attacking Wal-Mart. Without them, fat and vulgar moms would have no sanctuary to smack their feral offspring upside the head.
 
2014-03-25 12:30:57 PM  

Fissile: Nah, you don't get at all, do you?  Cut food stamps benefits per family and Walmart's earnings go down causing Walmart to reduce the number of employees who will then qualify for food stamps, and the newly impoverished will  shop at Walmart.

Same amount of sales + fewer workers = Profit!


Except that Wal-Mart's employees are already among the ones receiving food stamps and shopping at Wal-Mart in the first place.
 
2014-03-25 12:31:07 PM  

The Holy Mackerel: Stop attacking Wal-Mart. Without them, fat and vulgar moms would have no sanctuary to smack their feral offspring upside the head.


i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2014-03-25 12:31:18 PM  

jst3p: meat0918: jst3p: Dwindle: More than 45% of people on welfare have been for over 2 years.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

And less than 20% over 5 years.


Dwindle: Most of the people I know on welfare have been on welfare for over 20 years,

Oh, you are full of shiat. I see.

What I really love is how his anecdotes are gospel truth(while the stats show them to be false), while my anecdotes are suspect to the most extreme levels of suspicion.

Confirmation bias, he has it.

/That and I think he is flat out lying


We all have it a bit.

I'll take that SNAP has a fantastic track record of addressing fraud and abuse (only 3.8% in 2011), while the opposition moves the goal posts.

Other highlights from the report I linked.

"The recent growth in SNAP spending is temporary. "

"SNAP payment accuracy is at all-time highs. "

"SNAP Is Not Contributing to the Nation's Long-term Fiscal Problems"

"Only 1 percent, or $1 in every $100 of SNAP benefits, is trafficked."


I'll repeat that last one for the "People are selling their food for crack" crowd.

"Only 1 percent, or $1 in every $100 of SNAP benefits, is trafficked."
 
2014-03-25 12:31:25 PM  

Rwa2play: Y-you mean the Republicans cunning plan to starve the country is coming back to bite the ass of one of it's bigger benefactors?

[www.reactiongifs.us image 360x240]


It's a two way street.  Walmart is taking advantage of the welfare state pushed by Democrats in order to pay their employees just enough to get said welfare.  What they seem to be acknowledging is that the reduction in public assistance will affect their bottom line, either by forcing them to increase wages or reducing people's ability to purchase their goods, which would require them to raise wages seeing as the people struggling to buy the food would be the same people working for them.  Basically, they're having a Henry Ford moment.  Maybe something positive will happen(unlikely, but regardless Walmart loses, which is a good thing).

And, on a joking side note, if you've ever been in a Walmart, you would probably agree that the people there could stand to starve a little bit.
 
2014-03-25 12:31:26 PM  

meat0918: LazyMedia: Dwindle: women always get bennies.

No, they don't. Welfare reform in the '90s means you get two years of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, life time, total. Use that up, and you're in the same boat as a single man.

Fortunately, the vast majority of able-bodied people who get welfare or food stamps wind up eventually getting a job and moving off benefits. The "perpetual welfare" myth today applies only to old and disabled people. There's a fair amount of fraud in the disability area, but it's not like you should tell the majority of disabled or old people to just be more boot-strappy, and cut their benefits.

I thought TANF was two continuous years at a time, up to a lifetime total of 5 years?


Yeah, you're right. My mistake. It's still not something that multiple generations can perpetually live on, the way wingers think "welfare" works.
 
2014-03-25 12:31:35 PM  
Nonsense.  Wal-Mart is a Most Sacred and Holy Job Creator (peace be upon it).  If Wal-Mart requires the sacrifice of continuing food stamps, then it cannot, by its nature, be a welfare queen and food stamps cannot, by their nature, be welfare.  Instead what we clearly have is a typical example of government inefficiency, wherein food stamps, instead of going to the Most Sacred and Holy Job Creator (pbui) is first being "fenced" through the useless and terrible poors.

Sadly, a system does not fix in a day, and instead of cutting food stamps immediately we must instead find another temporary measure.  To make certain the Unclean Poors understand their nature and their need for betterment we must find new ways to punish and degrade them, perhaps making them stand in line for hours or write letters of apology to others.

Next farm bill (blessed be the farm bill) we should change the rules, giving a direct subsidy to Wal-Mart, a MSaHJC(pbui) based on the number of Unclean Poors in their economic zone, they will doubtless immediately hire more of these Unclean Poors and guide them to self-betterment, and lower their prices to feed them.
 
2014-03-25 12:31:36 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: No - IIRC base pay is taxed, and Base Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) and Base Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) are not taxed.

And I believe the base pay is not taxed when the servicemember is deployed outside CONUS but I don't recall all the details. (I was never deployed.)

meat0918: Hazardous Duty pay is generally limited to specific geographical areas. Not everyone is eligible.



Base pay is taxed on base inside of the US, but on deployment overseas it is to taxed. Hazardous duty pay is also based on the area of deployment, but they can be pretty liberal with the area just being vaguely dangerous. For example,  by brother got hazardous duty pay when he was deployed in Qatar, which was not an actual war zone, but merely war zone adjacent and actually a pretty nice place to spend your time overseas.
 
2014-03-25 12:31:41 PM  

EWreckedSean: Wal-Mart doesn't have an obligation to keep it's workforce fed and clothed. They make no such agreement when you hire on to take a job with them.


And the taxpayers of the United States shouldn't have an obligation to subsidize Wal-Mart's astonishingly cynical business model of paying substandard wages and directing their employees to local food banks and welfare offices to make up the difference.

But here we are.
 
2014-03-25 12:32:03 PM  

someonelse: Approximately how many people have you known for 20 years, and have known well enough to know they are on welfare that whole time? Ballpark estimate. And why were you privy to that information, exactly?


Because I worked for a property maintenance company for five years and processed all of their paperwork. New Bedford, Ma. is essentially a dumping ground for southern Mass poor people, and almost all were living on the dole (although several of them were legitimately disabled).

More to the point, I grew up in a piss poor town in the middle of the woods, and all of my friends lived off food stamps and welfare. Their fathers grew pot or sold drugs, their mothers gave handjobs at the truck stop for $5. They both worked cash jobs so they wouldn't lose the benefits, mostly construction and waiting tables.

Many of them grew up to be just like them.
 
2014-03-25 12:32:06 PM  

jst3p: someonelse: Dwindle: You wouldn't believe how many people who are too disabled to work can still go out to the clubs at night.

You worked for a property management company and you were aware of people's nighttime habits in the properties you managed? You lived on site and followed people when they went out? Did you go into the club to make sure they were dancing vigorously and/or carrying heavy objects rather than just sitting there? I'm not sure what you describe is legal. It borders on an invasion of privacy, wouldn't you say?

He doesn't need facts, he knows what  feels truthy to him. That's good enough.


He reminds me of a kid in my class, in my small town high school. I'll call him Billy, because that was his name. In junior high he went to Chicago for one weekend. The rest of the year, and long after that, he would act like he had the inside scoop on inner city life and how to avoid being mugged by n-words. Or my racist grandmother (as opposed to the other one who strictly hated the Japanese) who knew exactly one person who had rented an apartment to exactly one poor family for exactly one year, and thought she knew everything about the terrible, slovenly poors.
 
2014-03-25 12:32:35 PM  

jst3p: Dwindle: meat0918:  Plus you stupid asshole, food stamps cannot buy liquor, smokes, and lottery tickets; and most definitely cannot be withdrawn at an ATM.

That's why they go to bodegas, which will accept food stamps for all purchases. There is no enforcement, and no paper trail. I have seen it done a hundred times. How do you think people in the hood afford $15 a day in cigarettes?

Why do you think Bodegas never have a POS system? Because if they had one,. it would record what was food and what was booze.

Of course, that doesn't even include the people smply selling them on line (about $750 million a year):
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/11/03/food-stamp-fraud-beneficia ri es-illegally-sell-ebt-cards-on-craigslist-social-media-sites/

Or the people who simply stand outside the supermarket and sell them as low as 50% on the dollar. They will even push the shopping cart and load them into your car for you, hoping to get a tip on top of the cash.

You paint a frighting picture of welfare fraud. On the other hand you have lied repeatedly in this thread and have zero credibility.


Listen for yourself: "it's free. Swipe yo EBT". The first lyrics in the song brag about how to circumvent the rules.

http://youtu.be/xLTTX35LNJo

Welfare was meant to be a safety net, not a hammock. Abre sus ojos señor ciego.
 
2014-03-25 12:32:53 PM  

Dwindle: meat0918:  Plus you stupid asshole, food stamps cannot buy liquor, smokes, and lottery tickets; and most definitely cannot be withdrawn at an ATM.

That's why they go to bodegas, which will accept food stamps for all purchases. There is no enforcement, and no paper trail. I have seen it done a hundred times. How do you think people in the hood afford $15 a day in cigarettes?

Why do you think Bodegas never have a POS system? Because if they had one,. it would record what was food and what was booze.

Of course, that doesn't even include the people smply selling them on line (about $750 million a year):
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/11/03/food-stamp-fraud-beneficia ri es-illegally-sell-ebt-cards-on-craigslist-social-media-sites/

Or the people who simply stand outside the supermarket and sell them as low as 50% on the dollar. They will even push the shopping cart and load them into your car for you, hoping to get a tip on top of the cash.


I'll repeat it again for you

"Only 1 percent, or $1 in every $100 of SNAP benefits, is trafficked."
 
2014-03-25 12:33:51 PM  
so now that we know food stamps are going to big multi-national corporations, we're good, right Republicans?
 
2014-03-25 12:33:52 PM  

jst3p: Dwindle: More than 45% of people on welfare have been for over 2 years.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

And less than 20% over 5 years.


Dwindle: Most of the people I know on welfare have been on welfare for over 20 years,

Oh, you are full of shiat. I see.


Plus, that website is full of shiat. AFDC hasn't existed for the past 18 years; it was replaced by TANF, and by law you CAN'T be on TANF for more than five years (or more than two years continuously).
 
2014-03-25 12:34:01 PM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: firefly212: MemeSlave: firefly212: BMFPitt: Hey, it's this thread again. Always interesting to see the people who most strongly support these programs get butthurt because they are working as designed.

To be clear, I support food stamps because nobody should go hungry. I support a reasonable minimum wage because nobody who works 40 hours a week should need food stamps.

People need to start the race at the same point, not finish it at the same point.

I'm not saying everyone should finish at the same point and we should all by communists... I'm saying starting the race should mean that nobody starves to death in the richest country in the world. I'm also saying that if you work 40 hours a week, you should be making enough to provide basic food, healthcare, and shelter to your family... nobody's saying finish the race at the same point, except for you.

The only people who starve to death in the US are children of welfare recipients who use their hand-outs to buy dope rather than food.  Link me to an article where someone who can walk and talk has starved to death here in the past 50 years.  Also, as has been pointed out up-thread, WalMart is like McD', BK, KFC, etc.  It's a starting point for kids, or a way for older people to pick up some walking around money.  I doubt very many people take a job there expecting to make a career out of it.  Don't like their policies, don't take a job there and don't shop there.  Never see so much whiny butt-hurt in any threads (politics tab excepted) than in the weekly "WalMart sucks threads.  For fark's sake, it's nobody's fault but your own that you can't get a better job.  Maybe instead of wasting all that money on a worthless BA in quilting you should have gone to trade school?   But no.  Let's all blame somebody else for our own shortcomings and demand people make $40K/year + Bennies for knowing how to stock shelves, and in which aisle I can find toilet paper.


Let me get this straight, people with a lack of education and job experience, are whining about the pay is low? color me shocked! I guess the whole idea of "life choices" is thrown out because we are suppose to have handouts given free. I guess that guy that has a ZERO Gpa in high school because he thought school was a joke, is now suppose to make $40,000 because he's whining about his job at micky d or walmart?

Sorry, but people made their choice to not finish school and pick up a trade, some decided to go to jail rather then be civilized. Why am I suppose to feel bad about it? I graduated early to join the armed service, only because I had no money for college. It wasn't my parents fault, they worked their whole lives and I simply didn't have a hand out. After I left the service I worked by day and went to college by night. Funny thing, I worked at Micky D's for over 2 years until I could find a decent job otherwise, around here I basically had no experience and only a high school diploma.

I still make barely above minimum wage, but at least I have a roof over my head and food, I might not have insurance either, however I can wake up knowing I have tried my best and I am grateful for what I have.
 
2014-03-25 12:34:45 PM  

meat0918: Dwindle: meat0918:  Plus you stupid asshole, food stamps cannot buy liquor, smokes, and lottery tickets; and most definitely cannot be withdrawn at an ATM.

That's why they go to bodegas, which will accept food stamps for all purchases. There is no enforcement, and no paper trail. I have seen it done a hundred times. How do you think people in the hood afford $15 a day in cigarettes?

Why do you think Bodegas never have a POS system? Because if they had one,. it would record what was food and what was booze.

Of course, that doesn't even include the people smply selling them on line (about $750 million a year):
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/11/03/food-stamp-fraud-beneficia ri es-illegally-sell-ebt-cards-on-craigslist-social-media-sites/

Or the people who simply stand outside the supermarket and sell them as low as 50% on the dollar. They will even push the shopping cart and load them into your car for you, hoping to get a tip on top of the cash.

I'll repeat it again for you

"Only 1 percent, or $1 in every $100 of SNAP benefits, is trafficked."


I see we said the same thing.
 
2014-03-25 12:34:50 PM  

Barricaded Gunman: archichris: The Other thing is that if that money were not being taxed or borrowed out of the economy, it would still exist....and it would still create economic activity. The fact that Obama is trying to funnel as much of the economy through the Government as possible to create dependence is the real topic here.

Actually, the "real topic here" is that the largest corporation in America, which generated $469 billion in revenue in 2013, and whose board members include 4 of the top 10 wealthiest Americans, intentionally built government public-assistance for their employees into their business model.

The other topic of interest is that uninformed stoops such as yourself leap to defend them as Sacred Job Creators every time the topic comes up.


No its just means you're too stupid to realize that Walmart sells groceries
 
2014-03-25 12:35:10 PM  
TheWhoppah:


This image ring any bells?
[www.rfl.com image 219x70]
See also:  http://www.ehow.com/list_6513786_benefits-working-wal_mart.html


I've never seen it nor has my son or niece. Sorry but didn't get a chance to ask her fiance. The link you provided makes Wally World sound like a great place to work. It isn't.
 
2014-03-25 12:36:08 PM  

jst3p: GORDON: That's why I get my groceries at the local places with the unionized workforce.  I can only get 20% of the stuff for the same price, but something something union pride/fair wage.

These guys are union:

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x403]


I might only get 90% of what you could get for the same price at Walmart, but I am OK with that.


Ummm, no.

I loathe walmart and what they represent but that shiathole is not a good example.  The prices are probably +50-100% of walmart and the employees are stereotypical union.  There's a reason they only survive in places where a walmart wont fit.

It may be a regional thing though.

I always try to remind people that Hilary Clinton was on the board of walmart in the "Sam's dead let's turn his company into a vile off-shoring race to the bottom" years.
 
2014-03-25 12:37:16 PM  
I've been working straight for about 45 years. I should be allowed to be rewarded for all my service and taxes paid by at least $200 a month in food stamps and an O'Barner Phone for the rest of my life. I am entitled.
 
2014-03-25 12:37:46 PM  

CivicMindedFive: You want to raise the wages of the working poor and stick it to giant corporations like Walmart, halt all immigration for a while. Not just illegal, but legal immigration as well.

Let this sink in for a minute, 2008-2013, the number of net jobs created:  Aproox 1.2M.  For the same period, the number of legal immigrants:  Approx  2.5M.  That's not counting the millions who immigrated illegally.


Yeah.  Our immigration system needs a serious overhaul.  We don't need to halt all immigration, but we do need to implement a system like most other nations - where proof of employability, and education, language ability, etc.  are required to immigrate.  Even uber-liberal nations do this.  U.S. immigration shoots waaayyy past uber-liberal and into insane free-for-all.

I wish this one issue wasn't so partisan polarized, so that people could look at it with common sense instead of partisan blinders - just honestly admit our immigration system is badly broken.
 
2014-03-25 12:38:06 PM  

archichris: doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.

Walmarts wages are above minimum. Typically 50 people show up to apply for every position.

The Other thing is that if that money were not being taxed or borrowed out of the economy, it would still exist....and it would still create economic activity. The fact that Obama is trying to funnel as much of the economy through the Government as possible to create dependence is the real topic here.

Perhaps some of those people could find jobs if we didnt have 38 Trillion dollars per year in Economic activity being prevented by regulation. Wages for the bottom 30% of Americas workforce represent something like a Trillion dollars of the GDP....so merely reducing targeted regulation by 3% could double those workers wages through normal economic forces like supply and demand.

But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.


Hey look kids, it's a WalMart Public Relations employee! Wave hi!
 
2014-03-25 12:38:11 PM  

meat0918: jst3p: meat0918: jst3p: Dwindle: More than 45% of people on welfare have been for over 2 years.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

And less than 20% over 5 years.


Dwindle: Most of the people I know on welfare have been on welfare for over 20 years,

Oh, you are full of shiat. I see.

What I really love is how his anecdotes are gospel truth(while the stats show them to be false), while my anecdotes are suspect to the most extreme levels of suspicion.

Confirmation bias, he has it.

/That and I think he is flat out lying

We all have it a bit.

I'll take that SNAP has a fantastic track record of addressing fraud and abuse (only 3.8% in 2011), while the opposition moves the goal posts.

Other highlights from the report I linked.

"The recent growth in SNAP spending is temporary. "

"SNAP payment accuracy is at all-time highs. "

"SNAP Is Not Contributing to the Nation's Long-term Fiscal Problems"

"Only 1 percent, or $1 in every $100 of SNAP benefits, is trafficked."

I'll repeat that last one for the "People are selling their food for crack" crowd.

"Only 1 percent, or $1 in every $100 of SNAP benefits, is trafficked."


And 100% of the people that he made up fall into that 1%.
 
2014-03-25 12:38:37 PM  

meat0918: I'll repeat it again for you

"Only 1 percent, or $1 in every $100 of SNAP benefits, is trafficked."


Listen bub, an anecdote is worth a thousand statistics, so technically, all SNAP benefits are trafficked 10 times. That's why SNAP fraud is bankrupting America, because enthusiastic cart-pushers might get a pack of smokes.

Or something like that, anyway.
 
2014-03-25 12:38:44 PM  

Barricaded Gunman: EWreckedSean: Wal-Mart doesn't have an obligation to keep it's workforce fed and clothed. They make no such agreement when you hire on to take a job with them.

And the taxpayers of the United States shouldn't have an obligation to subsidize Wal-Mart's astonishingly cynical business model of paying substandard wages and directing their employees to local food banks and welfare offices to make up the difference.

But here we are.


Cut welfare benefits and don't raise minimum wage.  That'll motivate the poors to stop being farking poor! lol amirite or amirite!?
 
2014-03-25 12:39:20 PM  

svanmeter: Hobodeluxe: SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.

yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?

You ever notice that the same demographic that they say are 'hungry' they then claim are victims of 'obesity'.

First they want to give them free soda, then they want to eliminate soda because it makes them fat.


As is mentioned in every single welfare thread, people on food stamps usually get the cheapest food they can find, which generally means heavily processed foods instead of fresh produce and meats. These are also the foods with the least nutritional value and the most likelihood of causing obesity and other health problems.
 
2014-03-25 12:39:22 PM  

bhcompy: Rwa2play: Y-you mean the Republicans cunning plan to starve the country is coming back to bite the ass of one of it's bigger benefactors?

[www.reactiongifs.us image 360x240]

It's a two way street.  Walmart is taking advantage of the welfare state pushed by Democrats in order to pay their employees just enough to get said welfare.  What they seem to be acknowledging is that the reduction in public assistance will affect their bottom line, either by forcing them to increase wages or reducing people's ability to purchase their goods, which would require them to raise wages seeing as the people struggling to buy the food would be the same people working for them.  Basically, they're having a Henry Ford moment.  Maybe something positive will happen(unlikely, but regardless Walmart loses, which is a good thing).

And, on a joking side note, if you've ever been in a Walmart, you would probably agree that the people there could stand to starve a little bit.


If the "welfare state" is a Democrat agenda, then why do Republicans fight minimum wage hikes tooth and nail?
 
Ant [TotalFark]
2014-03-25 12:39:42 PM  

LazyMedia: Temp work should be restricted to actual temporary employment. Companies should be prevented from filling three full-time jobs with five people just to dodge paying bennies. This would be an easy fix if Republicans didn't control the House.


Better yet, stop linking healthcare to employers at all! Take Obamacare where it should've gone in the first place: Single payer
 
2014-03-25 12:39:48 PM  

meat0918: meat0918: Dwindle: meat0918:  Plus you stupid asshole, food stamps cannot buy liquor, smokes, and lottery tickets; and most definitely cannot be withdrawn at an ATM.

That's why they go to bodegas, which will accept food stamps for all purchases. There is no enforcement, and no paper trail. I have seen it done a hundred times. How do you think people in the hood afford $15 a day in cigarettes?

Why do you think Bodegas never have a POS system? Because if they had one,. it would record what was food and what was booze.

Of course, that doesn't even include the people smply selling them on line (about $750 million a year):
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/11/03/food-stamp-fraud-beneficia ri es-illegally-sell-ebt-cards-on-craigslist-social-media-sites/

Or the people who simply stand outside the supermarket and sell them as low as 50% on the dollar. They will even push the shopping cart and load them into your car for you, hoping to get a tip on top of the cash.

I'll repeat it again for you

"Only 1 percent, or $1 in every $100 of SNAP benefits, is trafficked."

I see we said the same thing.


For the record, I am not sorry .02% of the federal budget is taken advantage of by some people while the bulk of the SNAP program does what it is supposed to do
 
2014-03-25 12:40:05 PM  

LazyMedia: Wal-Mart's pay scale isn't really the problem. The real problem is the explosion of "temporary" and part-time jobs, which are identical to full-time jobs except managers carefully monitor the number of hours you work to keep it low enough that they're not required to pay benefits. Most Wal-Mart workers could live on their paychecks if they could get 40 hours per week.

Temp work should be restricted to actual temporary employment. Companies should be prevented from filling three full-time jobs with five people just to dodge paying bennies. This would be an easy fix if Republicans didn't control the House.


Good idea, those high school students should just suck it. And those college students should do their part by taking out more loans instead of working to help pay for their education.

The issue is that people are trying to live off of no-skill jobs. Why is that?

/casts out lure
Unions have forced manufacturing off shore
Productivity is too high
Too many people
 
2014-03-25 12:40:06 PM  

someonelse: jst3p: someonelse: Dwindle: You wouldn't believe how many people who are too disabled to work can still go out to the clubs at night.

You worked for a property management company and you were aware of people's nighttime habits in the properties you managed? You lived on site and followed people when they went out? Did you go into the club to make sure they were dancing vigorously and/or carrying heavy objects rather than just sitting there? I'm not sure what you describe is legal. It borders on an invasion of privacy, wouldn't you say?

He doesn't need facts, he knows what  feels truthy to him. That's good enough.

He reminds me of a kid in my class, in my small town high school. I'll call him Billy, because that was his name. In junior high he went to Chicago for one weekend. The rest of the year, and long after that, he would act like he had the inside scoop on inner city life and how to avoid being mugged by n-words. Or my racist grandmother (as opposed to the other one who strictly hated the Japanese) who knew exactly one person who had rented an apartment to exactly one poor family for exactly one year, and thought she knew everything about the terrible, slovenly poors.


I have a guy in my office who is similar. Our HQ is in San Jose and after a trip out there he bolstered his usual rhetoric with a new anecdote: The welfare queen that pulled to 7-11 up in an Escalade in one of the worst parts of San Jose same time he did and he saw her pay for junk food with a SNAP card. It was pretty funny when I called him on his bullshiat as he told the story one time.

"Chris, I grew up in the bay area. No way your lily white ass stopped ANYWHERE in the 'worst' parts of San Jose."
 
2014-03-25 12:41:23 PM  

jst3p: Alonjar: meat0918: I dunno, I think we should pay those guys a bit more than that.  I know they get hazard pay (they do get hazard pay right?!?!?) when deployed, but they should be getting a bit more given the risk they are assumed to be taking.

$18,000 is their paycheck... they also get free healthcare,  free food and free housing.  When you factor in the benefits, it ends up being way more than just the base pay.

Tax free, right?


Negative. Taxes are withheld on every military paycheck. I was kind of shocked when I saw that on my first paycheck as a trainee. I was wondering why in the hell I was paying my own paycheck.
 
2014-03-25 12:41:37 PM  
A study showed that in Wisconsin where I live, each Super WalMart(assuming 300 employees) will cost the taxpayer between $900,000 and $1.73 million per year in welfare and social programs to support their low wages.
 
2014-03-25 12:41:53 PM  

Hobodeluxe: MemeSlave: Hobodeluxe: that should be an embarrassment to every American. That our largest corporations and our richest family is on welfare.

Abolish Earned Income Credit, it's just a taxpayer subsidy of minimum wage.

you really don't know how this works do you?


I know exactly how it works - people who (arguably) don't make enough to live on are given $ by the taxpayer.   The issue is that it artificially lowers wage demand which allows employers to pay less.  Elimination of the subsidy would place the burden back on the employer.
 
2014-03-25 12:42:23 PM  

Pincy: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: firefly212: MemeSlave: firefly212: BMFPitt: Hey, it's this thread again. Always interesting to see the people who most strongly support these programs get butthurt because they are working as designed.

To be clear, I support food stamps because nobody should go hungry. I support a reasonable minimum wage because nobody who works 40 hours a week should need food stamps.

People need to start the race at the same point, not finish it at the same point.

I'm not saying everyone should finish at the same point and we should all by communists... I'm saying starting the race should mean that nobody starves to death in the richest country in the world. I'm also saying that if you work 40 hours a week, you should be making enough to provide basic food, healthcare, and shelter to your family... nobody's saying finish the race at the same point, except for you.

The only people who starve to death in the US are children of welfare recipients who use their hand-outs to buy dope rather than food.  Link me to an article where someone who can walk and talk has starved to death here in the past 50 years.  Also, as has been pointed out up-thread, WalMart is like McD', BK, KFC, etc.  It's a starting point for kids, or a way for older people to pick up some walking around money.  I doubt very many people take a job there expecting to make a career out of it.  Don't like their policies, don't take a job there and don't shop there.  Never see so much whiny butt-hurt in any threads (politics tab excepted) than in the weekly "WalMart sucks threads.  For fark's sake, it's nobody's fault but your own that you can't get a better job.  Maybe instead of wasting all that money on a worthless BA in quilting you should have gone to trade school?   But no.  Let's all blame somebody else for our own shortcomings and demand people make $40K/year + Bennies for knowing how to stock shelves, and in which aisle I can find toilet paper.

Do they make bootstraps big enough for ...


Typical.  Have nothing intelligent to say, go to the ad-hom.
 
2014-03-25 12:42:55 PM  

IRQ12: I loathe walmart and what they represent but that shiathole is not a good example.  The prices are probably +50-100% of walmart and the employees are stereotypical union.  There's a reason they only survive in places where a walmart wont fit.


I used to shop at Safeway in DC all the time. Prices are almost exactly comparable to Wal-Mart. Grocery stores operate on only about a 1 percent margin; they CAN'T mark up prices for the same thing and stay in business. Where I live, I can get groceries at Kroger, Publix or Wal-Mart. The prices are the same, but Kroger and Publix pay better (I assume; Wal-Mart may be forced to pay more because this is an urban area where employees can go elsewhere).

Unionized grocery workers don't get paid that much more than non-union, they're just protected from the sort of worker abuse that Wal-Mart is so infamous for (forced, unpaid overtime, understaffing, trimming hours to keep people part time).
 
2014-03-25 12:42:58 PM  

someonelse: Yellow Beard: TheWhoppah: The issue is MUCH bigger than food stamps. Wal-Mart's labor practices also depend on welfare.  Wal-Mart pioneered the use of in-house social workers to enroll their own employees into government programs like food stamps and rental assistance for the purpose of using the social safety net to pay a portion of the employee's living expenses.  The result is that they have a stable mature workforce for the price of teenagers. Sure, their employees are low-motivation types but do you really think ambitious people will work as store drones for any extended period anyway?  Walmart stuff's employee paychecks with a flyer that has an 800 number for a 24-hour service called Resources for Living. They have a nationwide list of all charities that use enrollment in food stamps as an automatic qualifier to receive services and they can also hook you up with a list of every food bank, including religious ones, within a 50 mile radius of any walmart store.  The worst is when they hire indigent low skill (no skill) types from the state programs that pay half the wages for the first six months of employment... these individuals are typically fired for (imaginary) cause at the beginning of the seventh month.

This is utter and complete bullshiat. Not only does my son work at wally World but so do my niece, her fiance, and my nephew. Not one has ever seen the "flyer" you are on about or heard of "in house" social workers.

Did you just now talk to your son, your niece, her fiance, and your nephew to ask them? Or have you looked at the paychecks of your son, your niece, her fiance, and your nephew?


I see my son's paycheck every 2 weeks as I deposit it for him. Honestly, I've only asked my niece and her fiance about the whole food stamp counseling thing and have not asked to see their paychecks.
 
2014-03-25 12:43:43 PM  

dascott: If the "welfare state" is a Democrat agenda, then why do Republicans fight minimum wage hikes Tooth and Nail?


Because having a job isn't welfare, I presume.  I don't know.  I support a localized living wage over a federal and state minimum wages, because the cost of living in San Francisco is much different than the cost of living in Barstow.
 
2014-03-25 12:44:04 PM  

jst3p: GORDON: That's why I get my groceries at the local places with the unionized workforce.  I can only get 20% of the stuff for the same price, but something something union pride/fair wage.

These guys are union:

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x403]


I might only get 90% of what you could get for the same price at Walmart, but I am OK with that.



Safeway is as cheap as Walmart? Bullshiat.

I'm not a Walmart/big corporation guy but you're not going to tell me that millions of consumers have it wrong and you have it right. People shop at Walmart because its cheaper. Now, we can debate the reasons why its cheaper, but the fact that it is cheaper is not disputable, even with your 90% qualifier.
 
2014-03-25 12:44:12 PM  
The basic problem is wal mart thinks that since $8/hr was good money back when they set thier pay rate there when min wage was like $4.35 /hr its still good money now that min wage is $7.25/hr, and it just isnt.
 
2014-03-25 12:44:25 PM  

Carn: If you're in favor of large corporations paying sub-standard wages



Let us know what a standard wage is.  Thx.
 
2014-03-25 12:44:33 PM  

IRQ12: jst3p: GORDON: That's why I get my groceries at the local places with the unionized workforce.  I can only get 20% of the stuff for the same price, but something something union pride/fair wage.

These guys are union:

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x403]


I might only get 90% of what you could get for the same price at Walmart, but I am OK with that.


Ummm, no.

I loathe walmart and what they represent but that shiathole is not a good example.  The prices are probably +50-100% of walmart and the employees are stereotypical union.  There's a reason they only survive in places where a walmart wont fit.


 There are a ton of Safeways around here and more than a couple Super Walmarts. I am a pretty thrifty shopper and Safeway's prices aren't all that much more than WalMarts in my experience. I haven't grocery shopped at Walmart in years but when I first moved out with the kids I did a LOT of comparison.

Not saying you are wrong, like you said maybe it is regional.

Then again I picked Safeway because I believe they are more well known. I do shop there sometimes (depending on what other errands I am doing when I shop) but mostly it is these guys (who are also union):

douglasselementarypto.org
 
2014-03-25 12:44:54 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: where proof of employability, and education, language ability, etc.  are required to immigrate.


We already have that. It's very hard to immigrate legally into the United States. Virtually impossible if you're a low-skill worker, which is why so many Latinos come in illegally -- there IS no legal avenue for most of them.
 
2014-03-25 12:45:07 PM  

Yellow Beard: I see my son's paycheck every 2 weeks as I deposit it for him. Honestly, I've only asked my niece and her fiance about the whole food stamp counseling thing and have not asked to see their paychecks.


Your son has a nice gig going for him, having a personal secretary and all
 
2014-03-25 12:45:51 PM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


Enough of this.  Those in the lower military pay grades aren't poor because they aren't paid enough.  They are poor because they suck at managing their money.

An 18 year old E-1 with more than 4 months in makes over $18,000 per year.  That might not be a lot in the civilian world, but when your job training, medical insurance, housing, utilities, food and work clothes don't have to be paid out of that money it suddenly because a signifigant amount.  Of course few people remain an E-1 for long.  In 3 years you will most likely be an E-4 pulling in almost $27k per year.

There was a time when people in the military weren't paid very well.  That time is long gone.  Mid career enlisted make about $40k.  Mid career officers make $80k.
 
2014-03-25 12:45:58 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-25 12:46:49 PM  
"I got laid off and can't find another job in my field."

"Slacker! You should just get a job, any job! Its better than living off the UE teat, you parasite."

"Err ok. Walmart's the only other local place hiring that doesn't require years of further education. But they don't pay so good and I have a family to feed."

"Idiot! Jobs like Walmart weren't meant to support you. Go get a different job and get off the foodstamp teat, you parasite."

"Err ok. But now after going back to college and getting a new degree, I'm buried in debt and can't possibly hope to climb out of this financial hole."

"You should have gotten a degree in Job Creationism then, parasite!"
 
2014-03-25 12:47:21 PM  

ShadowKamui: No its just means you're too stupid to realize that Walmart sells groceries


I'm having difficulty understanding how this is the big "Oh SNAP!" moment you clearly thought it was. Can you enlighten me?
 
2014-03-25 12:47:38 PM  

MemeSlave: Hobodeluxe: MemeSlave: Hobodeluxe: that should be an embarrassment to every American. That our largest corporations and our richest family is on welfare.

Abolish Earned Income Credit, it's just a taxpayer subsidy of minimum wage.

you really don't know how this works do you?

I know exactly how it works - people who (arguably) don't make enough to live on are given $ by the taxpayer.   The issue is that it artificially lowers wage demand which allows employers to pay less.  Elimination of the subsidy would place the burden back on the employer already overburdened worker since there would be NO incentive for the employer to raise wages.



You think that Walmart bases their payscale on what their employees can afford?

"Uh oh, the cost of living increased. We need to give everyone a raise to match it so that they can maintain their standard of living".


/doesn't happen
 
2014-03-25 12:47:59 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: jst3p: GORDON: That's why I get my groceries at the local places with the unionized workforce.  I can only get 20% of the stuff for the same price, but something something union pride/fair wage.

These guys are union:

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x403]


I might only get 90% of what you could get for the same price at Walmart, but I am OK with that.


Safeway is as cheap as Walmart? Bullshiat.

I'm not a Walmart/big corporation guy but you're not going to tell me that millions of consumers have it wrong and you have it right. People shop at Walmart because its cheaper. Now, we can debate the reasons why its cheaper, but the fact that it is cheaper is not disputable, even with your 90% qualifier.


Math, how does it work? I never said they were "as cheap". I clearly said they are about 10% more expensive, although that is a guesstimate. Here is a comparison done by local news here:

localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.com

http://kdvr.com/2013/05/02/grocery-store-price-challenge/
 
2014-03-25 12:48:30 PM  

pdee: doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.

Do we love the Armed Services just as well?


Food Stamps: Military Families Redeem $100 Million A Year In SNAP Benefits



Again, I'd love to see how many of them REALLY running into situations where the food allowances are falling short for those families. I just know from talking to my brother that the people in the military are good a working the system with their allowances, so I have to wonder if some people have figured out that their base pay will qualify them for food stamps so they are using those to buy food with FIRST and then using their food allowance money. The food alliance isn't limited on what you can spend it on, so they could very well be using the SNAP program to put some extra money in their pockets.

Granted, most low-level enlisted aren't paid nearly what they should to be risking their lives like they are, but based on my conversations with my brother, they cover food allowances well enough that no one should have starving kids if they are budgeting reasonably well with their food purchases. I just wonder if anyone has ever looked into it to see if some less honest members of the military are working the system to their advantage because their pay is artificially low because of food and board being covered separately.
 
2014-03-25 12:50:01 PM  

buckler: svanmeter: Hobodeluxe: SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.

yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?

You ever notice that the same demographic that they say are 'hungry' they then claim are victims of 'obesity'.

First they want to give them free soda, then they want to eliminate soda because it makes them fat.

As is mentioned in every single welfare thread, people on food stamps usually get the cheapest food they can find, which generally means heavily processed foods instead of fresh produce and meats. These are also the foods with the least nutritional value and the most likelihood of causing obesity and other health problems.


Amazing how you too missed the point. Let me spell it out for you. First you want us to pay for freeloaders, then you want us to care if they get fat and lazy. Welfare was meant as a safety net, not a hammock.¡Carajo que hay brutos en esta página!
 
2014-03-25 12:52:52 PM  

dascott: meat0918: jst3p: meat0918: jst3p: Dwindle: More than 45% of people on welfare have been for over 2 years.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

And less than 20% over 5 years.


Dwindle: Most of the people I know on welfare have been on welfare for over 20 years,

Oh, you are full of shiat. I see.

What I really love is how his anecdotes are gospel truth(while the stats show them to be false), while my anecdotes are suspect to the most extreme levels of suspicion.

Confirmation bias, he has it.

/That and I think he is flat out lying

We all have it a bit.

I'll take that SNAP has a fantastic track record of addressing fraud and abuse (only 3.8% in 2011), while the opposition moves the goal posts.

Other highlights from the report I linked.

"The recent growth in SNAP spending is temporary. "

"SNAP payment accuracy is at all-time highs. "

"SNAP Is Not Contributing to the Nation's Long-term Fiscal Problems"

"Only 1 percent, or $1 in every $100 of SNAP benefits, is trafficked."

I'll repeat that last one for the "People are selling their food for crack" crowd.

"Only 1 percent, or $1 in every $100 of SNAP benefits, is trafficked."

And 100% of the people that he made up fall into that 1%.


31.media.tumblr.com

/the first?
//really??
 
2014-03-25 12:53:04 PM  

EWreckedSean: Wal-Mart doesn't have an obligation to keep it's workforce fed and clothed. They make no such agreement when you hire on to take a job with them. They agree to pay you a fair wage for bottom rung unskilled labor. The issue is people making careers out of jobs that aren't met to be careers.


The more I hear that argument the less I like it.  It used to be that there would be an employee or two at a retail location and they were the same as any other full time employee.  It wasn't all that long ago either.  In the 60s or 70s is when retail started being kid stuff rather than a place to start a career.  And fast food and chain restaurants took a giant swipe at food and bev.

These places used to have life-long employees as well as the weekend workers and people who were starting there.  Abraham Lincoln worked through law school as a grocer.  I believe working as a grocer actually PAID for his law school AND fed and clothed him, not that he survived just barely while he collected a lottery benefit or a scholarship.  Our entire economic structure is all farked because of killing manufacturing without picking back up the service industry.

Hotels, retail, restaurants, bars, and other "low end" jobs need to pay more because there aren't any more manual labor jobs to support everything else.  Working full time at Walmart (or any other retailer) needs to be about like working unskilled construction.  Enough for someone to get an apartment with a roommate and have a little spending money.  It's just what the current job market needs to be out of necessity for the economy.
 
2014-03-25 12:54:11 PM  

jst3p: DROxINxTHExWIND: jst3p: GORDON: That's why I get my groceries at the local places with the unionized workforce.  I can only get 20% of the stuff for the same price, but something something union pride/fair wage.

These guys are union:

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x403]


I might only get 90% of what you could get for the same price at Walmart, but I am OK with that.


Safeway is as cheap as Walmart? Bullshiat.

I'm not a Walmart/big corporation guy but you're not going to tell me that millions of consumers have it wrong and you have it right. People shop at Walmart because its cheaper. Now, we can debate the reasons why its cheaper, but the fact that it is cheaper is not disputable, even with your 90% qualifier.

Math, how does it work? I never said they were "as cheap". I clearly said they are about 10% more expensive, although that is a guesstimate. Here is a comparison done by local news here:

[localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.com image 396x307]

http://kdvr.com/2013/05/02/grocery-store-price-challenge/


Forgot to add:

The crux of my point wasn't "I can get groceries just as cheap somewhere else", it was "I will gladly pay a little more for groceries if I am paying a union shop who pays their employees more than Walmart."

But I understand some families aren't as fortunate as I am and making the same choice would force them into some tough decisions.
 
2014-03-25 12:54:15 PM  

Born_Again_Bavarian: what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.

Enough of this.  Those in the lower military pay grades aren't poor because they aren't paid enough.  They are poor because they suck at managing their money.

An 18 year old E-1 with more than 4 months in makes over $18,000 per year.  That might not be a lot in the civilian world, but when your job training, medical insurance, housing, utilities, food and work clothes don't have to be paid out of that money it suddenly because a signifigant amount.  Of course few people remain an E-1 for long.  In 3 years you will most likely be an E-4 pulling in almost $27k per year.

There was a time when people in the military weren't paid very well.  That time is long gone.  Mid career enlisted make about $40k.  Mid career officers make $80k.



$27,000/yr hasn't been good money in the DC area since the early 2000's, and even then you couldn't buy a house and support a family of four comfortably. What happens to those military families who get shipped from shiat Hill, Oklahoma to Andrews AFB in Maryland? Does their pay increase?
 
2014-03-25 12:54:21 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: jst3p: GORDON: That's why I get my groceries at the local places with the unionized workforce.  I can only get 20% of the stuff for the same price, but something something union pride/fair wage.

These guys are union:

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x403]


I might only get 90% of what you could get for the same price at Walmart, but I am OK with that.


Safeway is as cheap as Walmart? Bullshiat.

I'm not a Walmart/big corporation guy but you're not going to tell me that millions of consumers have it wrong and you have it right. People shop at Walmart because its cheaper. Now, we can debate the reasons why its cheaper, but the fact that it is cheaper is not disputable, even with your 90% qualifier.


The staples are similar in price, but I go to WinCo in Oregon because the food (and beer) IS cheaper than Walmart.

I've gotten strange looks from some of our new social peers about grocery habits on the rare occasion they come up. They can't understand why my wife and I are still shopping at WinCo instead of Market of Choice (think Whole Foods) or at least Safeway or Albertson's or Fred Meyers, since we can afford it now.  Politeness dictates we doesn't answer rudely of course, but I really want to say something crude, along the lines of "Because I'm a farking cheapskate and don't want to pay more than I have to just to gain some stupid farking social status over food."

Don't even bring up Walmart among this group.  You might as well have shot a puppy.
 
2014-03-25 12:54:35 PM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


The US Armed Forces doesn't accept food stamps.  This isn't about employees on assistance programs, it's about a giant corporate grocer that has acknowledged that SNAP benefit decreases is an external influence. It's not that their employees will have less to rely on, it's all the non-employees that get their groceries at Walmart; when they have less to spend, they'll spend less at Walmart, thus reducing their sales figures.

Every grocer is going to be affected by SNAP reductions, Walmart's just huge and also a retailer, so they're focused more.  Other retailers look better, and all other grocers are screwed without spinning this to be the grasping at straws against Walmart that it is.

That's not to say that Walmart isn't a black hole of poverty.  They drove so many people out of business, became the only option for smaller towns, sell cheap crap to people who then can't afford to save up for better quality product because they're always paying to replace the cheap crap.  

 Of course, remember folks, we should be looking at how we can change our society to not have any need for assistance programs, not just looking to change how we can eliminate the existence or degree of these programs.
 
2014-03-25 12:54:44 PM  

jayphat: what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.

My other love is that the mention of "walmart is often the largest private employer with the most employees on government assistance" in these articles. What's usually left out, state employees are number 1 in many cases. But, state employees make too much, right?


It is also irrelevant.  It doesn't matter because they have the most employees.  Would it make everyone feel better if they were 20 companies, instead of 1,  and everyone was still on food stamps.

They employ people who have little to no skills.   If you have no skills, and no education/knowledge, you just aren't going to be able to make that much.

Yes, it means you might not be able to buy your own house right after dropping out of 8th grade.

You might have to live in an efficiency, or sublet or have a roommate(or 3).

Guess what, if you are dumb enough, you might have to work two jobs, too.

Think about it before dropping out of school.
 
2014-03-25 12:55:23 PM  

Dwindle: More to the point, I grew up in a piss poor town in the middle of the woods, and all of my friends lived off food stamps and welfare. Their fathers grew pot or sold drugs, their mothers gave handjobs at the truck stop for $5. They both worked cash jobs so they wouldn't lose the benefits, mostly construction and waiting tables.


All of them! Every single one!

Ah, conservatives. You're such comically bad liars. Thanks for my morning chuckle.

Look, just because yo' momma gave you handjobs for five dollars, doesn't mean everyone else's mothers let them go for such a low price.
 
2014-03-25 12:55:37 PM  
So people on both sides are happy then?
 
2014-03-25 12:56:28 PM  
It's only the inner city walmarts that have that problem.  they don't have a culture of work.  the rural walmarts are all PhDs and put themselves through technical college while buying products at hobby lobby.
 
2014-03-25 12:56:33 PM  

Yellow Beard: meat0918: Dog Welder: Since it appears nobody bothered to read the actual article, what is actually being stated by WalMart is that their revenues are influenced by the amount of SNAP benefits being spent at its stores, and that if the SNAP programs are cut then WalMart will likely see a drop in revenue as spending decreases.

The GOP's plan to bring about a good economy fails when they take away spending power, and poor people get to starve as a side effect.

That's what I figured it was about.

What is often left unsaid is many WalMart regular employees are also food stamp recipients, and unless they've changed the policy, WalMart offers a discount on goods purchased by employees, so guess where those employees do the majority of their grocery shopping?

Good old WalMart.

WalMart directly benefits from food stamps in more ways than one.

The employee discount at wally world is 10% on everything except clearance items and groceries.


Down from the 15% from when I was working there, huh?
 
2014-03-25 12:56:41 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: $27,000/yr hasn't been good money in the DC area since the early 2000's, and even then you couldn't buy a house and support a family of four comfortably. What happens to those military families who get shipped from shiat Hill, Oklahoma to Andrews AFB in Maryland? Does their pay increase?


You'll either be provided housing or an allowance for housing based on average rents in the area of your duty station. So effectively, yes, their pay increases.
 
2014-03-25 12:57:26 PM  

jst3p: The Holy Mackerel: Stop attacking Wal-Mart. Without them, fat and vulgar moms would have no sanctuary to smack their feral offspring upside the head.

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 340x255]


themetalmountaineer.files.wordpress.com

/Palace not General.
 
2014-03-25 12:57:33 PM  

Baz744: Dwindle: More to the point, I grew up in a piss poor town in the middle of the woods, and all of my friends lived off food stamps and welfare. Their fathers grew pot or sold drugs, their mothers gave handjobs at the truck stop for $5. They both worked cash jobs so they wouldn't lose the benefits, mostly construction and waiting tables.

All of them! Every single one!

Ah, conservatives. You're such comically bad liars. Thanks for my morning chuckle.

Look, just because yo' momma gave you handjobs for five dollars, doesn't mean everyone else's mothers let them go for such a low price.


Didn't you know anecdotal evidence is the best kind of evidence?
 
2014-03-25 12:58:32 PM  

wyltoknow: "I got laid off and can't find another job in my field."

"Slacker! You should just get a job, any job! Its better than living off the UE teat, you parasite."

"Err ok. Walmart's the only other local place hiring that doesn't require years of further education. But they don't pay so good and I have a family to feed."

"Idiot! Jobs like Walmart weren't meant to support you. Go get a different job and get off the foodstamp teat, you parasite."

"Err ok. But now after going back to college and getting a new degree, I'm buried in debt and can't possibly hope to climb out of this financial hole."

"You should have gotten a degree in Job Creationism then, parasite!"


You give them too much credit.  They'd have just called you a freeloader looking for a handout after your very first argument.
 
2014-03-25 12:58:40 PM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


Free food, free housing, free electric, free heat, free A/C, free clothing, etc .... yeah sure I'm concerned.  Low E1-E3s get paid crap but they have everything paid for for them already.
 
2014-03-25 12:59:23 PM  
Well I guess it trickled down...
 
2014-03-25 12:59:30 PM  

svanmeter: buckler: svanmeter: Hobodeluxe: SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.

yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?

You ever notice that the same demographic that they say are 'hungry' they then claim are victims of 'obesity'.

First they want to give them free soda, then they want to eliminate soda because it makes them fat.

As is mentioned in every single welfare thread, people on food stamps usually get the cheapest food they can find, which generally means heavily processed foods instead of fresh produce and meats. These are also the foods with the least nutritional value and the most likelihood of causing obesity and other health problems.

Amazing how you too missed the point. Let me spell it out for you. First you want us to pay for freeloaders, then you want us to care if they get fat and lazy. Welfare was meant as a safety net, not a hammock.¡Carajo que hay brutos en esta página!


I'm guessing compassion and sense aren't your strong suits. People should be prevented from starving, whether it's from lack of work. or because of a student status that doesn't allow them to earn a wage while they prepare for a new or better career, disability or medical issues, etc. There is not a single person on welfare I know who doesn't want to get off that treadmill and into a productive, well-paying job. Ensuring they eat only the shiattiest food leads to diabetes, obesity and worse, which makes it that much harder to find work.

Hang up the "welfare queen" schtick. It's gotten old.
 
2014-03-25 12:59:34 PM  

svanmeter: buckler: svanmeter: Hobodeluxe: SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.

yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?

You ever notice that the same demographic that they say are 'hungry' they then claim are victims of 'obesity'.

First they want to give them free soda, then they want to eliminate soda because it makes them fat.

As is mentioned in every single welfare thread, people on food stamps usually get the cheapest food they can find, which generally means heavily processed foods instead of fresh produce and meats. These are also the foods with the least nutritional value and the most likelihood of causing obesity and other health problems.

Amazing how you too missed the point. Let me spell it out for you. First you want us to pay for freeloaders, then you want us to care if they get fat and lazy. Welfare was meant as a safety net, not a hammock.¡Carajo que hay brutos en esta página!


Food stamps aren't welfare. Food stamps are meant as a safety net against hunger for people, many of whom WORK FULL TIME, who don't make enough money to feed their kids properly. The solution to underfed kids whose parents pick lettuce and dig ditches is not to STOP FEEDING THE KIDS, and biatch at the parents to go get a better job. Somebody's got to pick the farking lettuce, and hungry kids don't grow up to pay as much of the Social Security taxes that will support your lazy ass once you're retired.
 
2014-03-25 12:59:49 PM  

purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde: Didn't you know anecdotal evidence is the best kind of evidence?


Well, that's what my friend told me, anyway.
 
2014-03-25 01:00:35 PM  
Has anyone mentioned that this has allowed Wal-Mart to externalize one of its largest costs, which has allowed it to compete at an unnatural level in the marketplace, allowing it to become as large as it is today by swallowing up entire communities worth of other establishments?
 
2014-03-25 01:01:43 PM  
Many ways to solve this problem. Why not go with the easiest one. Tally up every cent of SNAP used by wal mart employees. And then send wal mart the bill.
 
2014-03-25 01:02:05 PM  

bhcompy: Yellow Beard: I see my son's paycheck every 2 weeks as I deposit it for him. Honestly, I've only asked my niece and her fiance about the whole food stamp counseling thing and have not asked to see their paychecks.

Your son has a nice gig going for him, having a personal secretary and all


That's what I keep telling him.
 
2014-03-25 01:02:57 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: jayphat: what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.

My other love is that the mention of "walmart is often the largest private employer with the most employees on government assistance" in these articles. What's usually left out, state employees are number 1 in many cases. But, state employees make too much, right?

It is also irrelevant.  It doesn't matter because they have the most employees.  Would it make everyone feel better if they were 20 companies, instead of 1,  and everyone was still on food stamps.

They employ people who have little to no skills.   If you have no skills, and no education/knowledge, you just aren't going to be able to make that much.

Yes, it means you might not be able to buy your own house right after dropping out of 8th grade.

You might have to live in an efficiency, or sublet or have a roommate(or 3).

Guess what, if you are dumb enough, you might have to work two jobs, too.

Think about it before dropping out of school.



About 48 percent of employed U.S. college graduates are in jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) suggests requires less than a four-year college education. Eleven percent of employed college graduates are in occupations requiring more than a high-school diploma but less than a bachelor's, and 37 percent are in occupations requiring no more than a high-school diploma;
 
2014-03-25 01:03:04 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: $27,000/yr hasn't been good money in the DC area since the early 2000's, and even then you couldn't buy a house and support a family of four comfortably.


What about $27,000 plus free job training, health insurance, utilities, housing, food, and work clothes? Next sentence, bud. Read it. Where he said:

That might not be a lot in the civilian world, but when your job training, medical insurance, housing, utilities, food and work clothes don't have to be paid out of that money it suddenly because a signifigant amount.

If you're in the military, basically all of your actual paycheck is or can be disposable income.
 
2014-03-25 01:03:18 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: What happens to those military families who get shipped from shiat Hill, Oklahoma to Andrews AFB in Maryland? Does their pay increase?


yes.
http://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/bahCalc.cfm
 
2014-03-25 01:03:35 PM  

drew46n2: [img.fark.net image 640x640]


You win this thread.
 
2014-03-25 01:04:19 PM  

archichris: doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.

Walmarts wages are above minimum. Typically 50 people show up to apply for every position.

The Other thing is that if that money were not being taxed or borrowed out of the economy, it would still exist....and it would still create economic activity. The fact that Obama is trying to funnel as much of the economy through the Government as possible to create dependence is the real topic here.

Perhaps some of those people could find jobs if we didnt have 38 Trillion dollars per year in Economic activity being prevented by regulation. Wages for the bottom 30% of Americas workforce represent something like a Trillion dollars of the GDP....so merely reducing targeted regulation by 3% could double those workers wages through normal economic forces like supply and demand.

But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.


constitutionalley.us


\tard
 
2014-03-25 01:05:07 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Born_Again_Bavarian: what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.

Enough of this.  Those in the lower military pay grades aren't poor because they aren't paid enough.  They are poor because they suck at managing their money.

An 18 year old E-1 with more than 4 months in makes over $18,000 per year.  That might not be a lot in the civilian world, but when your job training, medical insurance, housing, utilities, food and work clothes don't have to be paid out of that money it suddenly because a signifigant amount.  Of course few people remain an E-1 for long.  In 3 years you will most likely be an E-4 pulling in almost $27k per year.

There was a time when people in the military weren't paid very well.  That time is long gone.  Mid career enlisted make about $40k.  Mid career officers make $80k.


$27,000/yr hasn't been good money in the DC area since the early 2000's, and even then you couldn't buy a house and support a family of four comfortably. What happens to those military families who get shipped from shiat Hill, Oklahoma to Andrews AFB in Maryland? Does their pay increase?


Yes, there's a Basic Allowance for Housing that goes on top of the $27k base pay. For an E-4 with dependents, that's $990 per month in shiat Hill, OK (assuming that's near Tinker AFB), which increases to $2,034 per month in the Andrews AFB zip code. Effectively, that E-4 is making $51,000 per year if he's in the DC area and living off base. And BAH isn't rent-dependent; if you find somewhere cheaper to live, you pocket the difference.
 
2014-03-25 01:07:43 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Yellow Beard: meat0918: Dog Welder: Since it appears nobody bothered to read the actual article, what is actually being stated by WalMart is that their revenues are influenced by the amount of SNAP benefits being spent at its stores, and that if the SNAP programs are cut then WalMart will likely see a drop in revenue as spending decreases.

The GOP's plan to bring about a good economy fails when they take away spending power, and poor people get to starve as a side effect.

That's what I figured it was about.

What is often left unsaid is many WalMart regular employees are also food stamp recipients, and unless they've changed the policy, WalMart offers a discount on goods purchased by employees, so guess where those employees do the majority of their grocery shopping?

Good old WalMart.

WalMart directly benefits from food stamps in more ways than one.

The employee discount at wally world is 10% on everything except clearance items and groceries.

Down from the 15% from when I was working there, huh?


apparently. My wife and I use his discount card all the time. It is 10% now
 
2014-03-25 01:08:48 PM  

Bazzlex001: Has anyone mentioned that this has allowed Wal-Mart to externalize one of its largest costs, which has allowed it to compete at an unnatural level in the marketplace, allowing it to become as large as it is today by swallowing up entire communities worth of other establishments?


Some of its other costs are also externalized. How many Supercenters do you think open without some kind of tax break?

Small town Fox News viewers: "Wal-Mart is interested in our town? Our economy will explode! Do anything they want to get them here!"

(2 years later)

Small town Fox News viewers: "All the small business in our town are gone, and Wal-Mart is our biggest employer. Most of Wal-Mart's employees are on food stamps. This is the liberals' fault!"
 
2014-03-25 01:09:51 PM  

LazyMedia: svanmeter: buckler: svanmeter: Hobodeluxe: SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.

yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?

You ever notice that the same demographic that they say are 'hungry' they then claim are victims of 'obesity'.

First they want to give them free soda, then they want to eliminate soda because it makes them fat.

As is mentioned in every single welfare thread, people on food stamps usually get the cheapest food they can find, which generally means heavily processed foods instead of fresh produce and meats. These are also the foods with the least nutritional value and the most likelihood of causing obesity and other health problems.

Amazing how you too missed the point. Let me spell it out for you. First you want us to pay for freeloaders, then you want us to care if they get fat and lazy. Welfare was meant as a safety net, not a hammock.¡Carajo que hay brutos en esta página!

Food stamps aren't welfare. Food stamps are meant as a safety net against hunger for people, many of whom WORK FULL TIME, who don't make enough money to feed their kids properly. The solution to underfed kids whose parents pick lettuce and dig ditches is not to STOP FEEDING THE KIDS, and biatch at the parents to go get a better job. Somebody's got to pick the farking lettuce, and hungry kids don't grow up to pay as much of the Social Security taxes that will support your lazy ass once you're retired.


"Lazy ass once you're retired"? How can you work for a living, earn a retirement, then be called lazy? Sad logic there.

Why do we keep hearing that Social Security will run out of money but we never hear that Welfare will run out of money?
 
2014-03-25 01:10:11 PM  

LazyMedia: Welcome to America. Pretty much all service member's wives work, like everyone else in the working class, and when they get laid off, they wind up on food stamps. The pay structure is set up for new recruits who are 18 and single; married service members with dependents get some additional bennies like a housing allowance, but it's not enough to make up for the additional expense.

Still, an E-1 makes more than $18,000 a year in base pay alone; that's the equivalent of $9 per hour. Not bad money for an 18-year-old with only a high school diploma, and if you make your expected promotions, you can retire in 20 years when you'll be making over $50k per year in base pay. And if you're married and living, say, in Mobile, AL, you get an extra $1,000 a month as an E-1 for housing. So that's $30k per year, or the equivalent of $15 an hour. The housing allowance goes up with rank, just like pay, and promotion up to E-3 is basically automatic.

America's troops are not underpaid, but some of them have more expenses than they can afford on one fairly decent wage.


Since you seem to be familiar with this stuff, perhaps you could answer a few questions:

1) How much are they expected to pay for their uniforms and equipment?

2) If they are living in barracks and eating in the mess hall, does room and board come out their paycheck?

2) Is medical care completely "free" for service people, or is there a deduction out of the pay numbers you quoted to cover it?

3) If a service gets medical coverage for their family, does it come out of their paycheck?  Does it cover pretty much everything?

4) If you come down with something expensive, long lasting and not combat related--say, cancer--that gets you medically discharged, are you able to continue the coverage you had as a member of the service?
 
2014-03-25 01:11:24 PM  
Whatnow, either you're a magnificent troll, or you're wholly uninformed about how well our military personnel are compensated. I like you, but wow you're wrong about this one.

In all of this talk about military compensation, and their various free or subsidized amenities, nobody has even mentioned the ample college benefits. That's on top of everything else mentioned in the thread.
 
2014-03-25 01:11:40 PM  
They're laughing at us:
http://youtu.be/xLTTX35LNJo
 
2014-03-25 01:11:59 PM  

svanmeter: Why do we keep hearing that Social Security will run out of money


I was first told that when I was in high school.


In 1989.
 
2014-03-25 01:13:18 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Mad_Radhu: factoryconnection: what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.

Junior enlisted paygrades are low in pay because they're expected to be trainees.  When you enlist with a few kids, or enlist and then knock up the first girl that bats her eyes at you in an off-base bar you're going to struggle.  However, advancement is fairly regular early on and there are always time-in-service pay raises.  Furthermore, military families get free healthcare, subsidized groceries, tax-free housing and subsistence allowances, or they get base housing.  Yes some junior enlisted personnel with kids end up using SNAP, but they are not the general case unlike Wal-Mart.

My brother enlisted and got married right out of basic, and he and his wife did fine on his pay and allowances. They weren't living large, but they always had a roof over their heads, they ate well and had medical care provided by the base. I have to wonder if some of the military families just applied for food stamps so they could pocket the food allowance money and spend it on cigarettes and beer, because unless you enlist with a small litter of kids you should be fine with the basic necessities all paid for.

If you know someone in the service there are all sorts of ways to stretch the allowance money. For example, my brother roomed with two other guys after his divorce, and they were all getting a $800 or so housing allowance so they rented a three bedroom house for $1600 a month and pocketed the extra $800 for beer money.

Why do the type of people that enlist in the army feel so compelled to marry right away?  My step brother did the same thing. He joined the army because he was a biatch that got beat up by my petite step-sister and he thought this would make him a man. Of course, he got a divorce too.  Such a boring cliche.


Because you get paid more if you're married.  If you are single and living in the barracks you are missing out on your food and housing allowance.  The soldiers all know this as do all the lower class girls in town.  We used to call them "dorm sluts" because they would screw everyone hoping to get knocked up.  Once you got the baby you got him by the balls.

It goes like this:

1.  Screw around until you get pregnant
2.  Get married
3.  Profit!
4.  ?????
5.  Start sleeping around, get divorced
6.  Get pregnant again
7.  Profit!

That is why the whole debate over the "sanctity of marriage" was so amusing to current and former military people (whether they cared to admit it or not)................everyone in the military knows someone in a sham marriage.  Everyone.
 
2014-03-25 01:13:19 PM  

clkeagle: Bazzlex001: Has anyone mentioned that this has allowed Wal-Mart to externalize one of its largest costs, which has allowed it to compete at an unnatural level in the marketplace, allowing it to become as large as it is today by swallowing up entire communities worth of other establishments?

Some of its other costs are also externalized. How many Supercenters do you think open without some kind of tax break?

Small town Fox News viewers: "Wal-Mart is interested in our town? Our economy will explode! Do anything they want to get them here!"

(2 years later)

Small town Fox News viewers: "All the small business in our town are gone, and Wal-Mart is our biggest employer. Most of Wal-Mart's employees are on food stamps. This is the liberals' fault!"


Oh absolutely. I just loved how TFA had absolutely no analysis of this.
 
2014-03-25 01:14:42 PM  
Thanks for all of the informative answers. I actually used to work at Walter Reed for a short time between accounting jobs at the beginning of the war. The department that I was in provided temporary housing for veterans and their families when they were visiting the hospital. I was not there long enough to learn all of the ins and outs but what i do remember is the absolute nickel squeezing poverty of the soldiers. There wasn't a lot of affordable 9or inhabitable) housing in that area so many of them ended up staying in a block of rooms that we had at the local Motel 6. The soldiers, male and female, always seemed miserable and I don't recall speaking to one of them who was happy about their decision to join...and this was BEFORE the war (Summer 2002).
 
2014-03-25 01:14:48 PM  

flondrix: Since you seem to be familiar with this stuff, perhaps you could answer a few questions:

1) How much are they expected to pay for their uniforms and equipment?

2) If they are living in barracks and eating in the mess hall, does room and board come out their paycheck?

2) Is medical care completely "free" for service people, or is there a deduction out of the pay numbers you quoted to cover it?

3) If a service gets medical coverage for their family, does it come out of their paycheck? Does it cover pretty much everything?

4) If you come down with something expensive, long lasting and not combat related--say, cancer--that gets you medically discharged, are you able to continue the coverage you had as a member of the service?


1)Every year you get a uniform allowance it's $290
2)Nope
3)free
4)I don't think but I have never researched it.
 
2014-03-25 01:16:03 PM  

Dwindle: someonelse: Approximately how many people have you known for 20 years, and have known well enough to know they are on welfare that whole time? Ballpark estimate. And why were you privy to that information, exactly?

Because I worked for a property maintenance company for five years and processed all of their paperwork. New Bedford, Ma. is essentially a dumping ground for southern Mass poor people, and almost all were living on the dole (although several of them were legitimately disabled).

More to the point, I grew up in a piss poor town in the middle of the woods, and all of my friends lived off food stamps and welfare. Their fathers grew pot or sold drugs, their mothers gave handjobs at the truck stop for $5. They both worked cash jobs so they wouldn't lose the benefits, mostly construction and waiting tables.

Many of them grew up to be just like them.


1. Ballpark estimate. 2. How did you know?

You addressed neither one.
 
2014-03-25 01:16:27 PM  

archichris: Wages for the bottom 30% of Americas workforce represent something like a Trillion dollars of the GDP....so merely reducing targeted regulation by 3% could double those workers wages through normal economic forces like supply and demand.

But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.


Right. Because the lower class had things so much better before corporate regulations. Our venerated employer-class will definitely pass the savings of reduced regulations on to their employees.

The wealth will "trickle-down" in a sense. Where have I heard that before?

Do you people actually believe this garbage?
 
2014-03-25 01:16:48 PM  
My brother is 28 and got sick when he was 17. He goes to the hospital every other week or so for blood transfusions. He visits the hospital constantly for various appointments with various doctors.

He will need a liver transplant at some point.

Since most employers frown on their employees shiatting blood in the company bathroom, and for a litany of other reasons, he cannot work and is on disability.

If any of you GOP "welfare queens is the devil" assholes would care to visit with my brother and myself, perhaps you will see the light.

If you do not, I will be happy to beat whatever light you may have right the hell out of you.

You are misinformed ignorant hate mongers, you have no place in this country, please do us all a favor and eat a bullet, but only after shooting and killing any breeding stock in your clan.

I dare you to crawl out from behind your monitors and take me up on my offer.
 
2014-03-25 01:18:09 PM  

svanmeter: They're laughing at us:
http://youtu.be/xLTTX35LNJo


As fascinating as that documentary is I will go with these numbers:

meat0918: I'll take that SNAP has a fantastic track record of addressing fraud and abuse (only 3.8% in 2011), while the opposition moves the goal posts.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3239
 
2014-03-25 01:19:18 PM  

jst3p: Alonjar: meat0918: I dunno, I think we should pay those guys a bit more than that.  I know they get hazard pay (they do get hazard pay right?!?!?) when deployed, but they should be getting a bit more given the risk they are assumed to be taking.

$18,000 is their paycheck... they also get free healthcare,  free food and free housing.  When you factor in the benefits, it ends up being way more than just the base pay.

Tax free, right?


Sub $20k wage earners aren't pay much if anything in federal taxes.  They do pay payroll taxes, of course.  All of their allowances (BAH, BAS, etc) are tax free.  The healthcare expense isn't even seen by the military member.  If you enlisted from a state where they pay state income taxes, change your home residence state..  You can pick any state you want.
 
2014-03-25 01:20:45 PM  
Wal-Mart has always been a welfare queen.  However, it is only the 2nd largest welfare queen behind Israel.
 
2014-03-25 01:21:02 PM  

Born_Again_Bavarian: That is why the whole debate over the "sanctity of marriage" was so amusing to current and former military people (whether they cared to admit it or not)................everyone in the military knows someone in a sham marriage. Everyone.



Before DODT was repealed a buddy of mine, who was flamboyantly gay, routed a request chit to get married to another sailor, a female, who was also a lesbian. The CMC had a chat with him and he withdrew his request, but I was interested to see what kind of legal grounds they would've had to deny the chit. None, as far as I saw it.
 
2014-03-25 01:24:41 PM  

LazyMedia: Dwindle: women always get bennies.

No, they don't. Welfare reform in the '90s means you get two years of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, life time, total. Use that up, and you're in the same boat as a single man.

Fortunately, the vast majority of able-bodied people who get welfare or food stamps wind up eventually getting a job and moving off benefits. The "perpetual welfare" myth today applies only to old and disabled people. There's a fair amount of fraud in the disability area, but it's not like you should tell the majority of disabled or old people to just be more boot-strappy, and cut their benefits.




I wonder if increasing requirements to qualify for disability actually increases the amount of fraud. As someone very disabled who has needed to be on SSI for years, I haven't applied yet because I barely handle getting out for one doctor's appointment a month. Until my health is better, or I get a fairy godmother, I can't work through the logistics of applying for SSI. I've always been very bright and good at making plans, but now I reschedule doctor's appointments regularly because I can't get my thoughts organized enough to know what I need to do during the visit, or the energy to get ready and look presentable.

Thank god Kentucky's Medicaid expansion and application made it super easy to get insurance once I hit 26.
 
2014-03-25 01:24:45 PM  

Linux_Yes: SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.

Brilliant!   throw the baby out with the bathwater.  as long as its not your baby.   i smell a republican again.  well done!


Actually, it might be a good short term idea. Eliminate food stamps and say: 'Well, if your employer actually paid you a living wage, you and your kids wouldn't starve.'

Sit back and enjoy the riots.
 
2014-03-25 01:25:03 PM  

flondrix: LazyMedia: Welcome to America. Pretty much all service member's wives work, like everyone else in the working class, and when they get laid off, they wind up on food stamps. The pay structure is set up for new recruits who are 18 and single; married service members with dependents get some additional bennies like a housing allowance, but it's not enough to make up for the additional expense.

Still, an E-1 makes more than $18,000 a year in base pay alone; that's the equivalent of $9 per hour. Not bad money for an 18-year-old with only a high school diploma, and if you make your expected promotions, you can retire in 20 years when you'll be making over $50k per year in base pay. And if you're married and living, say, in Mobile, AL, you get an extra $1,000 a month as an E-1 for housing. So that's $30k per year, or the equivalent of $15 an hour. The housing allowance goes up with rank, just like pay, and promotion up to E-3 is basically automatic.

America's troops are not underpaid, but some of them have more expenses than they can afford on one fairly decent wage.

Since you seem to be familiar with this stuff, perhaps you could answer a few questions:

1) How much are they expected to pay for their uniforms and equipment?


They're issued a full set of uniforms, and they get a monthly stipend to replace them as they wear out, but they actually wind up out of pocket on this to some extent. All equipment is owned by the government, as are "organizational uniforms" like the cammies they wear in Afghanistan.

2) If they are living in barracks and eating in the mess hall, does room and board come out their paycheck?

No, not if they're enlisted. Officers pay for their own food and uniforms, but they make a lot more money.

2) Is medical care completely "free" for service people, or is there a deduction out of the pay numbers you quoted to cover it?

It is completely free. They pay Medicare taxes like everyone else, but military health care is completely free. Outside civilian doctors are reimbursed through Tricare, with no co-pay.

3) If a service gets medical coverage for their family, does it come out of their paycheck?  Does it cover pretty much everything?

Dependents are automatically covered under active-duty Tricare.

4) If you come down with something expensive, long lasting and not combat related--say, cancer--that gets you medically discharged, are you able to continue the coverage you had as a member of the service?

Yes. You transition from Tricare to VA coverage, which pays out depending on the percentage of your disability.

Other major benefits are the post-9/11 GI bill, which pays 100 percent of the cost of a public university education (including a housing allowance) and can be transferred to your kids.

The U.S. military is an extremely stable and financially sound career choice. You might get shot, but you will be taken care of financially.
 
2014-03-25 01:25:22 PM  

Headso: archichris: But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]


That looks like a great lifestyle, but how am I supposed to learn about it??
 
2014-03-25 01:26:41 PM  

Pick: I've been working straight for about 45 years. I should be allowed to be rewarded for all my service and taxes paid by at least $200 a month in food stamps and an O'Barner Phone for the rest of my life. I am entitled.


you mean a Ronniephone. The program was created by your Savior the Lord God Ronald Reagan. But hey, you look cute with Lipton bags hanging off you cheap Chinese made pirate hat.
 
2014-03-25 01:28:30 PM  

Born_Again_Bavarian: jst3p: Alonjar: meat0918: I dunno, I think we should pay those guys a bit more than that.  I know they get hazard pay (they do get hazard pay right?!?!?) when deployed, but they should be getting a bit more given the risk they are assumed to be taking.

$18,000 is their paycheck... they also get free healthcare,  free food and free housing.  When you factor in the benefits, it ends up being way more than just the base pay.

Tax free, right?

Sub $20k wage earners aren't pay much if anything in federal taxes.  They do pay payroll taxes, of course.  All of their allowances (BAH, BAS, etc) are tax free.  The healthcare expense isn't even seen by the military member.  If you enlisted from a state where they pay state income taxes, change your home residence state..  You can pick any state you want.


It is shameful how little my son in the Army is paid. It is even more shameful that the government just CUT the military's pay even further. ¡Que vergüenza señor Obama!
 
2014-03-25 01:28:39 PM  

LazyMedia: They're issued a full set of uniforms, and they get a monthly stipend to replace them as they wear out


It's not monthly, it's every two years. And you're right that it usually doesn't cover the costs, with tailoring (patches) factored in.
 
2014-03-25 01:28:54 PM  
archichris:
Perhaps some of those people could find jobs if we didnt have 38 Trillion dollars per year in Economic activity being prevented by regulation. Wages for the bottom 30% of Americas workforce represent something like a Trillion dollars of the GDP....so merely reducing targeted regulation by 3% could double those workers wages through normal economic forces like supply and demand.


[Citation Needed].jpg
 
2014-03-25 01:29:45 PM  

Mathematics of Wonton Burrito Meals: Hobodeluxe: yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?

60 million people to get a job and not be bums?


Hey, everyone!  Look at this idiot who thinks people on food stamps don't have jobs!  Even though the whole point of the article we're discussing is that there are so many people with jobs who still can't afford food!  Pointing and laughing is free, but if you want a tomato to throw that'll cost you (food stamps accepted).
 
2014-03-25 01:29:53 PM  

TheNewJesus: My brother is 28 and got sick when he was 17. He goes to the hospital every other week or so for blood transfusions. He visits the hospital constantly for various appointments with various doctors.

He will need a liver transplant at some point.

Since most employers frown on their employees shiatting blood in the company bathroom, and for a litany of other reasons, he cannot work and is on disability.

If any of you GOP "welfare queens is the devil" assholes would care to visit with my brother and myself, perhaps you will see the light.

If you do not, I will be happy to beat whatever light you may have right the hell out of you.

You are misinformed ignorant hate mongers, you have no place in this country, please do us all a favor and eat a bullet, but only after shooting and killing any breeding stock in your clan.

I dare you to crawl out from behind your monitors and take me up on my offer.


Well said, and I feel for your brother. Such a young man to be that ill, poor dude. Best wishes to him.

It really is amazing how the "Christian" conservatives are so incensed by any type of food to the hungry, any healing for the sick, or basically everything I was always taught is... Christian. These conservatives go on and on and on about mythical "welfare queens" while having no problem with us spending nearly as much as the entire rest of the planet combined on "defense" (read: killing machines), corporate welfare and all the rest. The one big issue that really gets them going is aid to the poor. It's a magical hot-button issue that gets almost all of them all riled up, the very possibility that someone is enjoying comfort they didn't earn. Not that people are enduring suffering they don't deserve; nope, that's not their problem. How Christian of them.
 
2014-03-25 01:32:22 PM  
LazyMedia: Flondrix: 3) If a service gets medical coverage for their family, does it come out of their paycheck?  Does it cover pretty much everything?
Dependents are automatically covered under active-duty Tricare.


There are still noticeable co-pays for dependent care (especially specialized care like mental health services), but it's still dirt cheap compared to most private insurers.

When it comes down to it, the military has really good pay and benefits compared to the majority of the private sector, and has enjoyed fairly robust pay increases in the post-Dot-Com-bubble US. The real question... are troops overcompensated, or has the rest of America been undercompensated? I believe the latter to be completely true.
 
2014-03-25 01:32:55 PM  

menschenfresser: TheNewJesus: My brother is 28 and got sick when he was 17. He goes to the hospital every other week or so for blood transfusions. He visits the hospital constantly for various appointments with various doctors.

He will need a liver transplant at some point.

Since most employers frown on their employees shiatting blood in the company bathroom, and for a litany of other reasons, he cannot work and is on disability.

If any of you GOP "welfare queens is the devil" assholes would care to visit with my brother and myself, perhaps you will see the light.

If you do not, I will be happy to beat whatever light you may have right the hell out of you.

You are misinformed ignorant hate mongers, you have no place in this country, please do us all a favor and eat a bullet, but only after shooting and killing any breeding stock in your clan.

I dare you to crawl out from behind your monitors and take me up on my offer.

Well said, and I feel for your brother. Such a young man to be that ill, poor dude. Best wishes to him.

It really is amazing how the "Christian" conservatives are so incensed by any type of food to the hungry, any healing for the sick, or basically everything I was always taught is... Christian. These conservatives go on and on and on about mythical "welfare queens" while having no problem with us spending nearly as much as the entire rest of the planet combined on "defense" (read: killing machines), corporate welfare and all the rest. The one big issue that really gets them going is aid to the poor. It's a magical hot-button issue that gets almost all of them all riled up, the very possibility that someone is enjoying comfort they didn't earn. Not that people are enduring suffering they don't deserve; nope, that's not their problem. How Christian of them.


Religious extremists don't need a god, they just need a devil.
 
2014-03-25 01:33:07 PM  

meat0918: DROxINxTHExWIND: jst3p: GORDON: That's why I get my groceries at the local places with the unionized workforce.  I can only get 20% of the stuff for the same price, but something something union pride/fair wage.

These guys are union:

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x403]


I might only get 90% of what you could get for the same price at Walmart, but I am OK with that.


Safeway is as cheap as Walmart? Bullshiat.

I'm not a Walmart/big corporation guy but you're not going to tell me that millions of consumers have it wrong and you have it right. People shop at Walmart because its cheaper. Now, we can debate the reasons why its cheaper, but the fact that it is cheaper is not disputable, even with your 90% qualifier.

The staples are similar in price, but I go to WinCo in Oregon because the food (and beer) IS cheaper than Walmart.

I've gotten strange looks from some of our new social peers about grocery habits on the rare occasion they come up. They can't understand why my wife and I are still shopping at WinCo instead of Market of Choice (think Whole Foods) or at least Safeway or Albertson's or Fred Meyers, since we can afford it now.  Politeness dictates we doesn't answer rudely of course, but I really want to say something crude, along the lines of "Because I'm a farking cheapskate and don't want to pay more than I have to just to gain some stupid farking social status over food."

Don't even bring up Walmart among this group.  You might as well have shot a puppy.


and because Winco is employee owned
 
2014-03-25 01:33:58 PM  

menschenfresser: Clearly, the solution is to give the super-rich tax cuts.

The Waltons could then continue with their job creation duties. They won't do that, though, unless we cut their taxes even more, because we're hostage to their whims or something.


a137.idata.over-blog.com
 
2014-03-25 01:34:37 PM  

dascott: Living high on the hog on welfare, that's a good one.

Those people might exist, and we have a word for them: Criminals.


===========

Yup.  In 2010 I worked for the Census.  I worked in several AAs from very wealthy to very poor.  I saw these welfare people "living high on the hog".   God help you if you ever end up on welfare with nothing else.
 
2014-03-25 01:35:05 PM  

GnomePaladin: Mathematics of Wonton Burrito Meals: Hobodeluxe: yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?

60 million people to get a job and not be bums?

Hey, everyone!  Look at this idiot who thinks people on food stamps don't have jobs!  Even though the whole point of the article we're discussing is that there are so many people with jobs who still can't afford food!  Pointing and laughing is free, but if you want a tomato to throw that'll cost you (food stamps accepted).


Those people you claim have jobs are quiting in high numbers because it makes more financial sense for them to get obamacare and unemployment. As the song goes, "it's free. Swipe your EBT".

http://youtu.be/xLTTX35LNJo

No hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver.
 
2014-03-25 01:35:07 PM  

svanmeter: Born_Again_Bavarian: jst3p: Alonjar: meat0918: I dunno, I think we should pay those guys a bit more than that.  I know they get hazard pay (they do get hazard pay right?!?!?) when deployed, but they should be getting a bit more given the risk they are assumed to be taking.

$18,000 is their paycheck... they also get free healthcare,  free food and free housing.  When you factor in the benefits, it ends up being way more than just the base pay.

Tax free, right?

Sub $20k wage earners aren't pay much if anything in federal taxes.  They do pay payroll taxes, of course.  All of their allowances (BAH, BAS, etc) are tax free.  The healthcare expense isn't even seen by the military member.  If you enlisted from a state where they pay state income taxes, change your home residence state..  You can pick any state you want.

It is shameful how little my son in the Army is paid. It is even more shameful that the government just CUT the military's pay even further. ¡Que vergüenza señor Obama!


What the crap are you talking about? We just got a 1.8 percent pay raise. Your son is lying to you so he doesn't have to send as much money home, the little puta.
 
2014-03-25 01:36:22 PM  

anuran: meat0918: DROxINxTHExWIND: jst3p: GORDON: That's why I get my groceries at the local places with the unionized workforce.  I can only get 20% of the stuff for the same price, but something something union pride/fair wage.

These guys are union:

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x403]


I might only get 90% of what you could get for the same price at Walmart, but I am OK with that.


Safeway is as cheap as Walmart? Bullshiat.

I'm not a Walmart/big corporation guy but you're not going to tell me that millions of consumers have it wrong and you have it right. People shop at Walmart because its cheaper. Now, we can debate the reasons why its cheaper, but the fact that it is cheaper is not disputable, even with your 90% qualifier.

The staples are similar in price, but I go to WinCo in Oregon because the food (and beer) IS cheaper than Walmart.

I've gotten strange looks from some of our new social peers about grocery habits on the rare occasion they come up. They can't understand why my wife and I are still shopping at WinCo instead of Market of Choice (think Whole Foods) or at least Safeway or Albertson's or Fred Meyers, since we can afford it now.  Politeness dictates we doesn't answer rudely of course, but I really want to say something crude, along the lines of "Because I'm a farking cheapskate and don't want to pay more than I have to just to gain some stupid farking social status over food."

Don't even bring up Walmart among this group.  You might as well have shot a puppy.

and because Winco is employee owned


I like WinCo a lot.
 
2014-03-25 01:37:20 PM  
The U.S. military is an extremely stable and financially sound career choice. You might get shot, but you will be taken care of financially.

I tell people that if they want the stability of being in the military but don't want to get shot at, pick a service and job that accomidates that.  Coast Guard?  Yep.  The USCG has some dangerous jobs but those are all voluntary positions.  I have a friend in the USCG who spend a portion of his career patroling a lake in Vermont that sits on the border.  I'm sure they run into some unsavory characters on occasion but its nothing like walking a beat in Afghanistan.  You can also pick a clerical job in any of the services.  It might not be right but E-4 pay is the same everywhere............doesn't matter if you are making copies in a air conditioned office at a AF base in Oklahoma or clearing a house of suspected terrorists in Afghanistan.
 
2014-03-25 01:37:21 PM  

Pangea: archichris: Wages for the bottom 30% of Americas workforce represent something like a Trillion dollars of the GDP....so merely reducing targeted regulation by 3% could double those workers wages through normal economic forces like supply and demand.

But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.

Right. Because the lower class had things so much better before corporate regulations. Our venerated employer-class will definitely pass the savings of reduced regulations on to their employees.

The wealth will "trickle-down" in a sense. Where have I heard that before?

Do you people actually believe this garbage?


Because they've forgotten why unions rose to power in the first place.  Lets dump all the regulations that placate the public enough that they don't feel the need to form angry mobs and go on organized mass strikes.  Lets see what happens to corporate profits when their workers are rioting in the streets.  Want to see America fully embrace socialism?  Just let the Tea Party run the country for a few years.
 
2014-03-25 01:37:44 PM  

archichris: doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.

Walmarts wages are above minimum. Typically 50 people show up to apply for every position.

The Other thing is that if that money were not being taxed or borrowed out of the economy, it would still exist....and it would still create economic activity. The fact that Obama is trying to funnel as much of the economy through the Government as possible to create dependence is the real topic here.

Perhaps some of those people could find jobs if we didnt have 38 Trillion dollars per year in Economic activity being prevented by regulation. Wages for the bottom 30% of Americas workforce represent something like a Trillion dollars of the GDP....so merely reducing targeted regulation by 3% could double those workers wages through normal economic forces like supply and demand.

But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.


i59.tinypic.com
 
2014-03-25 01:37:47 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: Carn: If you're in favor of large corporations paying sub-standard wages


Let us know what a standard wage is.  Thx.


Living Wage Calculator.

I live in Fairfax County VA, and according to this site, the minimum living wage is $13.22 an hour, which even though I know you probably know this, I'll explain anyway, is the minimum wage that a person in my county (on average) needs to earn in order to be able to afford food, shelter (heat) and transportation.

Your counter to this will be "well people aren't supposed to live off of minimum wage jobs".  And that's fine as long as you accept that the price for this is your tax dollars making up the $6 shortfall in wages.
 
2014-03-25 01:37:53 PM  

SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.


Because what this country needs is millions of starving, desperate people with unchecked access to guns.
 
2014-03-25 01:38:49 PM  

LazyMedia: svanmeter: Born_Again_Bavarian: jst3p: Alonjar: meat0918: I dunno, I think we should pay those guys a bit more than that.  I know they get hazard pay (they do get hazard pay right?!?!?) when deployed, but they should be getting a bit more given the risk they are assumed to be taking.

$18,000 is their paycheck... they also get free healthcare,  free food and free housing.  When you factor in the benefits, it ends up being way more than just the base pay.

Tax free, right?

Sub $20k wage earners aren't pay much if anything in federal taxes.  They do pay payroll taxes, of course.  All of their allowances (BAH, BAS, etc) are tax free.  The healthcare expense isn't even seen by the military member.  If you enlisted from a state where they pay state income taxes, change your home residence state..  You can pick any state you want.

It is shameful how little my son in the Army is paid. It is even more shameful that the government just CUT the military's pay even further. ¡Que vergüenza señor Obama!

What the crap are you talking about? We just got a 1.8 percent pay raise. Your son is lying to you so he doesn't have to send as much money home, the little puta.


Yeah, read the news:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/24/pentagon-budget- s equestration-army-size/5775291/

(And learn correct Spanish)
 
2014-03-25 01:38:55 PM  

svanmeter: Those people you claim have jobs are quiting in high numbers because it makes more financial sense for them to get obamacare and unemployment. As the song goes, "it's free. Swipe your EBT".

http://youtu.be/xLTTX35LNJo

No hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver.


rrriiigghht, people on welfare are making decisions based on sound financial sense.

¿dónde está el baño?
 
2014-03-25 01:39:24 PM  

svanmeter: Born_Again_Bavarian: jst3p: Alonjar: meat0918: I dunno, I think we should pay those guys a bit more than that.  I know they get hazard pay (they do get hazard pay right?!?!?) when deployed, but they should be getting a bit more given the risk they are assumed to be taking.

$18,000 is their paycheck... they also get free healthcare,  free food and free housing.  When you factor in the benefits, it ends up being way more than just the base pay.

Tax free, right?

Sub $20k wage earners aren't pay much if anything in federal taxes.  They do pay payroll taxes, of course.  All of their allowances (BAH, BAS, etc) are tax free.  The healthcare expense isn't even seen by the military member.  If you enlisted from a state where they pay state income taxes, change your home residence state..  You can pick any state you want.

It is shameful how little my son in the Army is paid. It is even more shameful that the government just CUT the military's pay even further. ¡Que vergüenza señor Obama!


Oh stop it.  Cutting retirement COLA by 1% is reasonable given home much military pay has grown since 2000.  It is also something that was wanted by the Pentagon.
 
2014-03-25 01:39:29 PM  

svanmeter: Those people you claim have jobs are quiting in high numbers because it makes more financial sense for them to get obamacare and unemployment


You don't get unemployment when you quit you ignorant chud. When you have to lie to make your point it says a lot about your point.
 
2014-03-25 01:40:24 PM  

Isitoveryet: svanmeter: Those people you claim have jobs are quiting in high numbers because it makes more financial sense for them to get obamacare and unemployment. As the song goes, "it's free. Swipe your EBT".

http://youtu.be/xLTTX35LNJo

No hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver.

rrriiigghht, people on welfare are making decisions based on sound financial sense.

¿dónde está el baño?


Here it is

i612.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-25 01:40:37 PM  

svanmeter: Those people you claim have jobs are quiting in high numbers


those people are quitting in high number

unemployment figures have been dropping

no se puede explicar eso!
 
2014-03-25 01:41:27 PM  

GnomePaladin: Headso: archichris: But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]

That looks like a great lifestyle, but how am I supposed to learn about it??


oh it is your lucky day my friend, for just 17 easy installments of 99.95 you can have all the secrets to double your wealth on 6 vhs tapes.
 
2014-03-25 01:44:54 PM  

jst3p: svanmeter: Those people you claim have jobs are quiting in high numbers because it makes more financial sense for them to get obamacare and unemployment

You don't get unemployment when you quit you ignorant chud. When you have to lie to make your point it says a lot about your point.


Yeah, I don't know how unemployment works because I've never quit a job. I guess you're the authority on that. Our local welfare office had to set up an additional desk for all the people who quit their jobs because they found it easier to get Obama care and other handouts. Keep that head in the sand there amigo. Algún día dirás...¿Qué pasó? ¿Porqué se calló el gobierno?
 
2014-03-25 01:45:27 PM  

SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.


lol.i.trollyou.com
 
2014-03-25 01:45:36 PM  

svanmeter: jst3p: svanmeter: Those people you claim have jobs are quiting in high numbers because it makes more financial sense for them to get obamacare and unemployment

You don't get unemployment when you quit you ignorant chud. When you have to lie to make your point it says a lot about your point.

Yeah, I don't know how unemployment works because I've never quit a job. I guess you're the authority on that. Our local welfare office had to set up an additional desk for all the people who quit their jobs because they found it easier to get Obama care and other handouts. Keep that head in the sand there amigo. Algún día dirás...¿Qué pasó? ¿Porqué se calló el gobierno?


What the fark is with the spanish in every post? Does that make you feel special?
 
2014-03-25 01:45:44 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: archichris: doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.

Walmarts wages are above minimum. Typically 50 people show up to apply for every position.

The Other thing is that if that money were not being taxed or borrowed out of the economy, it would still exist....and it would still create economic activity. The fact that Obama is trying to funnel as much of the economy through the Government as possible to create dependence is the real topic here.

Perhaps some of those people could find jobs if we didnt have 38 Trillion dollars per year in Economic activity being prevented by regulation. Wages for the bottom 30% of Americas workforce represent something like a Trillion dollars of the GDP....so merely reducing targeted regulation by 3% could double those workers wages through normal economic forces like supply and demand.

But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.

Is this satire?


I believe it is. Just slightly too over the top to be real.

Good effort, though.
 
2014-03-25 01:47:53 PM  

meat0918: Here it is


It's raining lunch, hallelujah!
 
2014-03-25 01:47:54 PM  

Headso: GnomePaladin: Headso: archichris: But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]

That looks like a great lifestyle, but how am I supposed to learn about it??

oh it is your lucky day my friend, for just 17 easy installments of 99.95 you can have all the secrets to double your wealth on 6 vhs tapes.


Is there "one weird trick" involved?
 
2014-03-25 01:48:24 PM  

jayphat: svanmeter: jst3p: svanmeter: Those people you claim have jobs are quiting in high numbers because it makes more financial sense for them to get obamacare and unemployment

You don't get unemployment when you quit you ignorant chud. When you have to lie to make your point it says a lot about your point.

Yeah, I don't know how unemployment works because I've never quit a job. I guess you're the authority on that. Our local welfare office had to set up an additional desk for all the people who quit their jobs because they found it easier to get Obama care and other handouts. Keep that head in the sand there amigo. Algún día dirás...¿Qué pasó? ¿Porqué se calló el gobierno?

What the fark is with the spanish in every post? Does that make you feel special?


Are you discriminating against a someone for speaking Spanish. How shameful. I guess you haven't worshiped at the alter of "diversity" enough.
 
2014-03-25 01:48:57 PM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


Personally, I want there to be Facebook posters about all the working people on food stamps. I often mention our troops rely on food stamps because people need to know that the bulk of people getting assistance are not at all like the one surfer dude Fox keeps dragging out.

But is the government making a huge profit on the armed services? No, they are not. The Walton family is. They get to lower their overhead by paying crap wages because you and I are forced to make up up the difference. And, because the amount of food stamps is so low, people go to Walmart thinking they will get good food deals (in my experience, it's not cheaper to shop for food there).

It does not grind any of my gears to help our troops and their families eat well (food stamps go a longer way at the BX). It grinds every gear I have that my tax dollars are enriching the already loaded Walton family.
 
2014-03-25 01:49:37 PM  

svanmeter: It is shameful how little my son in the Army is paid. It is even more shameful that the government just CUT the military's pay even further. ¡Que vergüenza señor Obama!


What rank is he?  When did he start?  Does he have dependants?  Nobody in the military is hurting for money.  I've been in for 14 years now and when I first started I complained about how much I made then I realized what the cost of all those other benefits were and then it was "Wow this is a sweet racket".   Fast forward 14 years and I'm still like "Wow this is a sweet racket".
 
2014-03-25 01:52:20 PM  

svanmeter: jst3p: svanmeter: Those people you claim have jobs are quiting in high numbers because it makes more financial sense for them to get obamacare and unemployment

You don't get unemployment when you quit you ignorant chud. When you have to lie to make your point it says a lot about your point.

Yeah, I don't know how unemployment works because I've never quit a job.


Really? You have had the same job your entire working life? Never quit because you had a better opportunity come along? That's kind of sad. Just curious, what do you do and how long have you been doing it?


 I guess you're the authority on that.

I work in IT, I have been laid off. You seem ignorant about this subject so I will clue you in. Unemployment is insurance that your employer pays for incase they decide to make you unemployed through no fault of your own. It isn't a handout.

 Our local welfare office had to set up an additional desk for all the people who quit their jobs because they found it easier to get Obama care and other handouts.

Citation needed, because I think you are lying again.
 
2014-03-25 01:55:39 PM  

svanmeter: jst3p: svanmeter: Those people you claim have jobs are quiting in high numbers because it makes more financial sense for them to get obamacare and unemployment

You don't get unemployment when you quit you ignorant chud. When you have to lie to make your point it says a lot about your point.

Yeah, I don't know how unemployment works because I've never quit a job. I guess you're the authority on that. Our local welfare office had to set up an additional desk for all the people who quit their jobs because they found it easier to get Obama care and other handouts. Keep that head in the sand there amigo. Algún día dirás...¿Qué pasó? ¿Porqué se calló el gobierno?


Just what this thread needs, more made up hyperbole.
 
2014-03-25 01:59:01 PM  

Mrs.Sharpier: Wal-Mart CEOs, Presidents and Board of Directors should have to undergo drug tests every month. Also, they shouldn't spend their billions on lobster, cigarettes or soda.

Rep Paul Ryan is going to have a field day going after Wal-Mart! Right?


99.99% of Walmart executives own a REFRIGERATOR!
 
2014-03-25 02:00:21 PM  

jst3p: svanmeter: jst3p: svanmeter: Those people you claim have jobs are quiting in high numbers because it makes more financial sense for them to get obamacare and unemployment

You don't get unemployment when you quit you ignorant chud. When you have to lie to make your point it says a lot about your point.

Yeah, I don't know how unemployment works because I've never quit a job.

Really? You have had the same job your entire working life? Never quit because you had a better opportunity come along? That's kind of sad. Just curious, what do you do and how long have you been doing it?


 I guess you're the authority on that.

I work in IT, I have been laid off. You seem ignorant about this subject so I will clue you in. Unemployment is insurance that your employer pays for incase they decide to make you unemployed through no fault of your own. It isn't a handout.

 Our local welfare office had to set up an additional desk for all the people who quit their jobs because they found it easier to get Obama care and other handouts.

Citation needed, because I think you are lying again.


All I can provide you with is the name of my friend who provides security at the welfare palace who set the desk up. But that I'm sure would not be sufficient proof for you. I've had many jobs but I always left one job for another, so no need (I'm proud to say) for public assistance in any form. I see you are very pro Welfare. Even the Nazis had a form of welfare. A ver que estupidezes va a decir ahora.
 
2014-03-25 02:01:02 PM  

svanmeter: Those people you claim have jobs are quiting in high numbers because it makes more financial sense for them to get obamacare and unemployment. As the song goes, "it's free. Swipe your EBT".


You cannot get unemployment if you quit your job. You cannot get unemployment if you turn down paying offers.

The most people on food stamps are working. Many of our on-shore troops and their families are on food stamps.  Shame on you.
 
2014-03-25 02:01:25 PM