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 151
    More: Interesting, Walmart, welfare queen, Michael Hiltzik, median household income, welfare programs, Barry Ritholtz  
•       •       •

16520 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2014 at 10:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-25 10:13:18 AM  
20 votes:
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 09:17:13 AM  
16 votes:
that should be an embarrassment to every American. That our largest corporations and our richest family is on welfare.
2014-03-25 10:38:58 AM  
12 votes:

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 10:41:40 AM  
11 votes:
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  
10 votes:
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 10:51:23 AM  
9 votes:
How about instead of you the taxpayer paying to support Walmart workers, Walmart does.
2014-03-25 10:50:43 AM  
8 votes:

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 09:18:04 AM  
8 votes:
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 11:14:39 AM  
7 votes:

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 10:40:39 AM  
7 votes:

SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.


yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?
2014-03-25 10:48:52 AM  
6 votes:
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 10:40:17 AM  
6 votes:
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 11:22:47 AM  
5 votes:
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 11:13:59 AM  
5 votes:
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 11:04:20 AM  
5 votes:
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 11:02:52 AM  
5 votes:

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
2014-03-25 10:58:48 AM  
5 votes:
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.
NFA [TotalFark]
2014-03-25 10:56:23 AM  
5 votes:
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 10:35:47 AM  
5 votes:
Always low expectations

/Always
2014-03-25 10:35:39 AM  
5 votes:
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 10:54:46 AM  
4 votes:

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 10:49:16 AM  
4 votes:

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 10:47:14 AM  
4 votes:

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 10:41:08 AM  
4 votes:

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 10:27:53 AM  
4 votes:

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 02:50:36 PM  
3 votes:

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?


Well said. I had a Republican friend in college who had a housecat that he used to let out all day so it could pass the time by killing birds and small animals in the neighborhood. He defended the practice because "cats are part of nature." He completely missed the point that animals that are actually "part of nature" don't get to sleep in a safe house with food and water provided. They're part of the food chain, not simply visitors to it.

By absorbing every possible benefit available to corporations, and simultaneously pushing off their payroll responsibilities onto the American taxpayer, Walmart is that cat: big, lazy, and stupid, but continually patted on the head by simple-minded Republicans who refuse to understand the big picture even when it's pointed out to them.
2014-03-25 01:16:48 PM  
3 votes:
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 12:46:49 PM  
3 votes:
"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 11:47:28 AM  
3 votes:

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 11:10:52 AM  
3 votes:

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 11:05:36 AM  
3 votes:
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 11:04:03 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:57:41 AM  
3 votes:
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 10:49:27 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:49:16 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:48:58 AM  
3 votes:
Finally we figured out what is trickling down...food stamps.

Reaganomics is a success!
2014-03-25 10:48:34 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:39:06 AM  
3 votes:
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 09:23:27 AM  
3 votes:
1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.
2014-03-25 06:45:41 PM  
2 votes:

svanmeter: DeaH: 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.

No, shame on a liberal government who pays soldiers so little that they have to rely on food stamps.


No, shame on you for making up stuff about people quitting their jobs to go on unemployment.

Yes, soldiers should be paid more, but the government, unlike the Walton family, is not making a profit off their low wages. Also, our troops' food stamps go a lot further than the food stamps of someone who works at Walmart because the BX really does discount food, unlike Walmart. Troops and their families also get excellent housing allowances, including free housing on base. These are not options for the person working at Walmart. Also, the military is cutting the number of troops needed now, so some of these troops and their family members will be returning to situations exactly like those of the Walmart employees.

So, shame on you, again, for making up stuff about people quitting their jobs to go on unemployment. Shame on you more for not addressing it. Shame on you even more for only caring about active duty troops at the expense of our veterans. That is, if you have any shame.
Ant
2014-03-25 03:11:01 PM  
2 votes:

jeffowl: Unions Our participation in a race to the bottom with countries who basically have what amounts to slave labor have forced manufacturing off shore


FTFY
2014-03-25 02:07:11 PM  
2 votes:

The Southern Dandy: 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!


One of the signs of the March of Progress is how the outraged chain letters about poor people have evolved from "They have teevees!" to "They have color teevees!" to "They have flatscreen teevees!"
2014-03-25 02:01:02 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:45:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:37:21 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:39:22 PM  
2 votes:

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?
2014-03-25 12:13:00 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:41:11 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:29:19 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:27:37 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:17:22 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:09:40 AM  
2 votes:

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.
Ant
2014-03-25 11:02:53 AM  
2 votes:
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 11:01:08 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:58:16 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:46:54 AM  
2 votes:
Become?
2014-03-25 10:36:41 AM  
2 votes:

SovietCanuckistan: Is Walmart Black and poor?


Just their employees.
2014-03-25 10:36:40 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:32:37 AM  
2 votes:

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.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-25 09:17:17 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:43:33 PM  
1 votes:
Let me clarify. I am former active duty/ retired Air National Guard. My husband is AGR Air Guard. We have Tricare, which is mostly awesome. We both will have access to Tricare and VA here on out, and frankly I won't apologize for that. However, in this great country, people should not die for lack of basic healthcare.

"A Place at the Table" stuck with me. BILLIONS in corporate welfare and many don't blink an eye as working families decide daily whether to pay a bill or buy milk. Obscene.
2014-03-25 10:36:28 PM  
1 votes:

svanmeter: I've had many jobs but I always left one job for another


svanmeter: I've never quit a job.



One of these two statements you made must be a lie, they can not both be true.


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.


Lie. You never demonstrated that people were quitting their jobs in high numbers nor their motivation for them doing so. In fact your claim is impossible because it isn't possible to quit your job because you want want to go on the dole and collect unemployment.

svanmeter:

Jst3p: did you learn propaganda techniques from Goebels? You repeat the same lie over and over. Maybe the Germans were gullible enough to believe repeated lies, but I suspect the FARK community may be a little less gullible. Get a life girl.


Do tell about the lies you don't tell...
2014-03-25 10:27:46 PM  
1 votes:

svanmeter: freetomato: svanmeter:mLet's compare DD-214's scumbag. Oh wait, you don't have one.

I do have one. 26 years, just retired in January, thank you very much. What you don't get is that fark isn't like Fox or Free Republic, where you can state any outrageous grievance without citation. You have made claims of people quitting their jobs with the sole intent of living off government largesse, yet have not provided one factual citation to support your assertion. Of course you will be called on it. Of course you will be mocked when you fail to back it up. You are relatively new here. A tip. Have your sources at the ready. It makes for a more convincing argument.

You seem like an intelligent guy. I am sure you can find the supporting data that will clear matters right up. I look forward to seeing it.

It just occurred to me what seems far fetched to you, and so self evident to me may be a result of your not living in California. I'm pretty sure there is much information out there which shows how California compares with hand-outs in relation to other states, but I'm not interested enough to research it, nor am I interested in proving anything to you. You strike me as a close minded person who quickly resorts to ad homonym attacks when someone has an opinion that does not fit your world view. If you did in fact serve our country as you say, then I owe you an apology for saying "shame on you" for not serving. I stand by my opinion that our government pays our troops too little and is to generous with "entitlements" for those who are NOT entitled.


I grew up in Citrus Heights, CA, a suburb of Sacramento. My family resides across the narrow neck of CA, from Tahoe to San Francisco. I know Northern California like the back of my hand. My working poor sisters have health insurance for the first time in their lives, and they are thrilled by it. Many of us who have had insurance for years don't get how big a deal that is. I have Tricare, and once my active duty husband retires, Tricare for Life at a reasonable fee. You as a vet have the same VA coverage, right?

Kind of socialist, isn't it? I'm grateful for it. If I get a weird growth or start crapping blood, I can see a doc rather than get admitted in the ER.
2014-03-25 10:20:54 PM  
1 votes:

svanmeter: Let's compare DD-214's scumbag. Oh wait, you don't have one.


Look dude, you've already gotten busted lying in the thread, and I didn't even see anyone point out that you don't get unemployment if you quit... so that's just another lie. Throwing out your imaginary DD-214 isn't going to help you, it's the internet, nobody believes your fake credentials, especially not when you've already gotten busted lying in the same thread. Move on, troll another thread, best of luck to you in your endeavours and all that. If you do have a real DD-214, thank you for your service, but please don't bust out military credentials right after you get caught lying, it does a disservice to us all.
2014-03-25 10:17:35 PM  
1 votes:

svanmeter: freetomato: svanmeter:mLet's compare DD-214's scumbag. Oh wait, you don't have one.

I do have one. 26 years, just retired in January, thank you very much. What you don't get is that fark isn't like Fox or Free Republic, where you can state any outrageous grievance without citation. You have made claims of people quitting their jobs with the sole intent of living off government largesse, yet have not provided one factual citation to support your assertion. Of course you will be called on it. Of course you will be mocked when you fail to back it up. You are relatively new here. A tip. Have your sources at the ready. It makes for a more convincing argument.

You seem like an intelligent guy. I am sure you can find the supporting data that will clear matters right up. I look forward to seeing it.

It just occurred to me what seems far fetched to you, and so self evident to me may be a result of your not living in California. I'm pretty sure there is much information out there which shows how California compares with hand-outs in relation to other states, but I'm not interested enough to research it, nor am I interested in proving anything to you. You strike me as a close minded person who quickly resorts to ad homonym attacks when someone has an opinion that does not fit your world view. If you did in fact serve our country as you say, then I owe you an apology for saying "shame on you" for not serving. I stand by my opinion that our government pays our troops too little and is to generous with "entitlements" for those who are NOT entitled.


I think what he finds disagreeable in you isn't the differences of opinion, rather the blatant lies you have told.
2014-03-25 09:47:47 PM  
1 votes:

fredklein: IN this thread: lots of people saying that other people should pay their workers more.

NOT in this thread: people starting businesses and paying their employees those same wages


Put your money where your mouths are, people- start a business and pay your employees $15, $20, $50, or even $100 dollars an hour.

What? It wouldn't be profitable? You don't say...


You seem to be cherry picking information.  You apparently have ignored the many people saying Walmart is essentially taking advantage of welfare benefits subsidizing employee pay.

And furthermore taking in those same government dollars in sales.

It's not just any business that people are saying should pay employees more.  Its Walmart being discussed because of how they specifically take advantage of the system in two ways.
2014-03-25 09:11:33 PM  
1 votes:
svanmeter:mLet's compare DD-214's scumbag. Oh wait, you don't have one.

I do have one. 26 years, just retired in January, thank you very much. What you don't get is that fark isn't like Fox or Free Republic, where you can state any outrageous grievance without citation. You have made claims of people quitting their jobs with the sole intent of living off government largesse, yet have not provided one factual citation to support your assertion. Of course you will be called on it. Of course you will be mocked when you fail to back it up. You are relatively new here. A tip. Have your sources at the ready. It makes for a more convincing argument.

You seem like an intelligent guy. I am sure you can find the supporting data that will clear matters right up. I look forward to seeing it.
2014-03-25 08:13:06 PM  
1 votes:

svanmeter: DeaH: svanmeter: DeaH: 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.

No, shame on a liberal government who pays soldiers so little that they have to rely on food stamps.

No, shame on you for making up stuff about people quitting their jobs to go on unemployment.

Yes, soldiers should be paid more, but the government, unlike the Walton family, is not making a profit off their low wages. Also, our troops' food stamps go a lot further than the food stamps of someone who works at Walmart because the BX really does discount food, unlike Walmart. Troops and their families also get excellent housing allowances, including free housing on base. These are not options for the person working at Walmart. Also, the military is cutting the number of troops needed now, so some of these troops and their family members will be returning to situations exactly like those of the Walmart employees.

So, shame on you, again, for making up stuff about people quitting their jobs to go on unemployment. Shame on you more for not addressing it. Shame on you even more for only caring about active duty troops at the expense of our veterans. That is, if you have any shame.

I am a veteran myself and I have a son on active duty. I have seen the additional desks set up to accommodate the throngs who have shown up to sign up for the freebies that obamacare provides. You don't say YOU are a veteran nor do I see you mention a family member in the military, so it seems you are just spewing hot air from the Socialist talking points. Shame on YOU for not serving your country. Ay, que estas mentes huecos aquí me enervan.


There is no reason for me to believe you ever served when you are so obviously lying about tables for ACA freebies and people quitting their jobs to get unemployment. You have more than proven your bonifides as a shameless liar who would stoop to lying about service. I do not have to brag about military service. I am the one who brought up food stamps for the military. I am the one who explained to you about the BX and housing allowances. You continue to lie. You are beneath contempt, and I will say nothing further to something as low and vile as you.
2014-03-25 08:10:53 PM  
1 votes:
This thread has been helpful in knowing who to farkie in piss yellow.

Green for those I like.
2014-03-25 05:37:09 PM  
1 votes:

Goimir: 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?

You've never quit a job? That's hilarious!


Keep in mind, he is a liar.
2014-03-25 05:25:15 PM  
1 votes:

LazyMedia: If you're a 21-year-old with a laid-off spouse, three kids and are paying for an elderly dependent's health care, you SHOULD get public assistance; you're who it's for.


At one time a 21-year old high school graduate (or dropout) with a stay-at-home wife and three kids didn't need public assistance.  Because entry level jobs paid enough.

What's changed since then?
2014-03-25 04:34:13 PM  
1 votes:

Soup4Bonnie: LazyMedia: Risk of death or serious injury is definitely a factor to consider, especially if you go into combat arms. But that's kind of the point of the job. I'm not saying the military's for everyone (I wish we had a national, non-military service option). But it's not a bad deal for those who choose it.

My issue was you depicting it as the American Dream.


The American dream part is the "start out with a menial, low-paying job, living in impoverished circumstances, then see your pay and responsibility increase over the years until you're a manager with a house in the suburbs." That one. The one where life is as predictable as a MMORPG. That used to be possible for barely educated factory workers, but it's mostly gone. About the only place you can find it is in government service, especially the military (most GS jobs don't hire right out of high school).
2014-03-25 04:23:21 PM  
1 votes:

stonicus: I bought a reversible belt from Wal-Mart a few weeks ago.  It fits well and was a reasonable price.


one side gives you cancer and the other just a rash, the fun is finding out which is which.
2014-03-25 04:08:15 PM  
1 votes:
I bought a reversible belt from Wal-Mart a few weeks ago.  It fits well and was a reasonable price.
2014-03-25 02:53:24 PM  
1 votes:

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

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.


You forgot about forcing your suppliers to provide their wares at prices so low that they have to sent decent paying jobs overseas.  The former employees are now forced to take lower paying jobs, unemployment, or welfare/food stamps and shop at Wal-Mart.
2014-03-25 02:46:57 PM  
1 votes:

clkeagle: Carn: 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.

Thanks for posting that - I'm going to get a LOT of mileage out of it.


No problem, always nice to have a source.
2014-03-25 02:36:23 PM  
1 votes:

jst3p: svanmeter: The next step when labeling a troll doesn't work

lol, it's too late bud. I will give you credit, it was a very good run but you went too far and made it too obvious.

Well done though.


Yeah, the "living on Obamacare" was a bit of a tell. I have low-cost or no-cost health insurance, that will pay for my rent and groceries!
2014-03-25 02:20:30 PM  
1 votes:

SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.


Yup.  Walmart will no longer have either customers or employees.
2014-03-25 02:09:24 PM  
1 votes:

svanmeter: 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.


You are correct. That would not demonstrate that people are quitting their jobs because they found it easier to get Obamacare and other handouts.

 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.

So you lied when you said this:

svanmeter: I've never quit a job.


OK, liar is trolling or troll is lying.
2014-03-25 01:55:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:49:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:48:57 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:45:27 PM  
1 votes:

SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.


lol.i.trollyou.com
2014-03-25 01:40:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:37:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:37:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:37:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:35:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:29:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:16:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:13:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:08:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:59:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:59:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:59:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:53:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:45:58 PM  
1 votes:
img.fark.net
2014-03-25 12:44:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:41:37 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:39:48 PM  
1 votes:

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
Ant
2014-03-25 12:39:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:37:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:33:51 PM  
1 votes:
so now that we know food stamps are going to big multi-national corporations, we're good, right Republicans?
2014-03-25 12:31:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:31:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:23:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:19:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:19:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:16:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:07:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:06:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:05:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:01:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:58:24 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:54:50 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:47:00 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:42:30 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:41:09 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:39:13 AM  
1 votes:
Just Modern American Capitalism 101 - socialize the risks and costs, privatize the profits - untaxed, to the degree possible.
2014-03-25 11:38:21 AM  
1 votes:

MFAWG: SovietCanuckistan: Is Walmart Black and poor?

Just their employees customers.


FTFY
2014-03-25 11:38:02 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:33:58 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:32:22 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:30:09 AM  
1 votes:
As the song goes: "It's free. Swipe yo EBT!"

http://youtu.be/xLTTX35LNJo
2014-03-25 11:29:36 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:29:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:28:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:26:41 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:22:13 AM  
1 votes:
static.giantbomb.com
2014-03-25 11:21:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:21:33 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:19:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:17:05 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:15:12 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:13:47 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:12:55 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:10:11 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:01:04 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:01:01 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:00:51 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:59:18 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:56:29 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:53:51 AM  
1 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com
2014-03-25 10:51:35 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:51:17 AM  
1 votes:
We've known this for a while.

Just wait.  The farmers will start complaining next.
2014-03-25 10:45:08 AM  
1 votes:
WalMart: we've reached a new low in unbridled crony capitalism in 'murica.


you're welcome!
2014-03-25 10:44:12 AM  
1 votes:
Is this where we say; Oh SNAP
2014-03-25 10:43:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:40:51 AM  
1 votes:
Much of this problem would be solved if some of these people would choose to stop being poor.
2014-03-25 10:40:07 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:37:01 AM  
1 votes:
More proof liberal policies are really the corporate welfare.
 
Displayed 151 of 151 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report