Food Stamps and the $41 Cake (1 Viewer)

[DA RAIDERS]

my wife's friend had another kid, just so she would qualify for all the maximum aid

She must be living the life now. I am so jealous of her and all her junk food eating children

We're paying for it.

I have zero issues with the $70-80 a year I pay into the federal coffers for food for other people.

No issues with them working the system? Him turning down promotions and or never seeking a way to pay for his wife and kids needs because the government will do it. her shooting kids out, just to get the max aid for food, insurance, medical care etc? Their insurance for 6 is less than mine for 3, and emergency visits are free. Go Murcia!!

 

[Chaka]

my wife's friend had another kid, just so she would qualify for all the maximum aid

She must be living the life now. I am so jealous of her and all her junk food eating children

We're paying for it.

I have zero issues with the $70-80 a year I pay into the federal coffers for food for other people.

No issues with them working the system? Him turning down promotions and or never seeking a way to pay for his wife and kids needs because the government will do it. her shooting kids out, just to get the max aid for food, insurance, medical care etc? Their insurance for 6 is less than mine for 3, and emergency visits are free. Go Murcia!!

That's nice and she is the rare example of potential fraud that happens in this system. What about the working poor which make up the vast majority of SNAP recipients.

I hope you are this zealous about all programs, companies, organizations in which fraud occurs.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Oh please. It pisses me off, zealous? Not really.

My bil is another winner. He's early 30's can't keep a job longer than 2-3 months. Is an alcoholic and lives with his dad. He's getting close to being fully subsidized by the govt as well. He gets a free phone!, insurance, food stamps etc. I've encouraged him to be legally diagnosed so that his poor dad can stop covering what the govt doesn't.

If he stopped drinking most of his problems would go away.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Nobody ever wins votes by telling people to save more. On the other hand, if you promise people $41 cakes large tax cuts which others will pay for, you will be elected to Congress, and hailed as a great statesman who cares for the poor.

 

[tommyGunZ]

my wife's friend had another kid, just so she would qualify for all the maximum aid

I'm always curious as to the math behind the "having more kids to get more gumbermint money". Do you know the details?

 

[Henry Ford]

my wife's friend had another kid, just so she would qualify for all the maximum aid

She must be living the life now. I am so jealous of her and all her junk food eating children

We're paying for it.

I have zero issues with the $70-80 a year I pay into the federal coffers for food for other people.

No issues with them working the system? Him turning down promotions and or never seeking a way to pay for his wife and kids needs because the government will do it. her shooting kids out, just to get the max aid for food, insurance, medical care etc? Their insurance for 6 is less than mine for 3, and emergency visits are free. Go Murcia!!

None.

 

[Chaka]

Oh please. It pisses me off, zealous? Not really.

My bil is another winner. He's early 30's can't keep a job longer than 2-3 months. Is an alcoholic and lives with his dad. He's getting close to being fully subsidized by the govt as well. He gets a free phone!, insurance, food stamps etc. I've encouraged him to be legally diagnosed so that his poor dad can stop covering what the govt doesn't.

If he stopped drinking most of his problems would go away.

I'm sorry about your BIL but it feels like you are using him as a baseline for all SNAP recipients when that is simply not the case.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

my wife's friend had another kid, just so she would qualify for all the maximum aid

I'm always curious as to the math behind the "having more kids to get more gumbermint money". Do you know the details?

I don't. Incredibly simplified, it's just the more dependents, the bigger the subsidies. Whether that's tax credits, aca, food stamps, etc. Eta: here's the first paragraph to qualify for snap:

Its gross monthly income that is, its income before any of the programs deductions are applied generally must be at or below 130 percent of the poverty line. For a family of three, the poverty line in federal fiscal year 2014 is $1,628 a month. Thus, 130 percent of the poverty line for a three-person family is $2,116 a month, or about $25,400 a year. The poverty level is higher for bigger families and lower for smaller families.[3]

http://centeronbudget.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1269

It will screw them when their 4 kids that are under 7 now, are between 12-18

 

[Loan Sharks]

my wife's friend had another kid, just so she would qualify for all the maximum aid

I'm always curious as to the math behind the "having more kids to get more gumbermint money". Do you know the details?

I vaguely remember the social services lady talking to us at the hospital when my kids were born. I think the number of kids under 5 effects the income cap that you can qualify under. Once they are 5 they drop off because of school lunches, so if you keep having babies you can stay on the free stuff program.

The SS lady said my kids qualified for aid since I just had three infants at the same time. I think the cap was 25k for one infant.

This was in Cali 5 years ago.

Look up the details yourself lazy.

 

[tommyGunZ]

my wife's friend had another kid, just so she would qualify for all the maximum aid

I'm always curious as to the math behind the "having more kids to get more gumbermint money". Do you know the details?

I don't. Incredibly simplified, it's just the more dependents, the bigger the subsidies. Whether that's tax credits, aca, food stamps, etc.Eta: here's the first paragraph to qualify for snap:

Its gross monthly income that is, its income before any of the programs deductions are applied generally must be at or below 130 percent of the poverty line. For a family of three, the poverty line in federal fiscal year 2014 is $1,628 a month. Thus, 130 percent of the poverty line for a three-person family is $2,116 a month, or about $25,400 a year. The poverty level is higher for bigger families and lower for smaller families.[3]

http://centeronbudget.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1269

It will screw them when their 4 kids that are under 7 now, are between 12-18

Per that link: "Step 6 — SNAP Benefit: The maximum benefit in 2014 for a family of three is $497."



I can't imagine having extra kids is a net benefit for the finances.

 

[McGarnicle]

Have there been any studies done to determine how many welfare recipients are using the system as intended, and how many are lazy parasites? This is a debate that never ends and the answers always seem to depend on one's political leanings. Conservatives talk about welfare queens pooping out more babies so they can get more gubment money, and libs cry insensitivity and say that's an inaccurate stereotype. My guess is the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

my wife's friend had another kid, just so she would qualify for all the maximum aid

I'm always curious as to the math behind the "having more kids to get more gumbermint money". Do you know the details?

I don't. Incredibly simplified, it's just the more dependents, the bigger the subsidies. Whether that's tax credits, aca, food stamps, etc.Eta: here's the first paragraph to qualify for snap:

Its gross monthly income that is, its income before any of the programs deductions are applied generally must be at or below 130 percent of the poverty line. For a family of three, the poverty line in federal fiscal year 2014 is $1,628 a month. Thus, 130 percent of the poverty line for a three-person family is $2,116 a month, or about $25,400 a year. The poverty level is higher for bigger families and lower for smaller families.[3]http://centeronbudget.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1269

It will screw them when their 4 kids that are under 7 now, are between 12-18

Per that link: "Step 6 SNAP Benefit: The maximum benefit in 2014 for a family of three is $497."



I can't imagine having extra kids is a net benefit for the finances.

3 more kids nets you $403 more a month. kids don't eat much in the beginning.

 

[tommyGunZ]

my wife's friend had another kid, just so she would qualify for all the maximum aid

I'm always curious as to the math behind the "having more kids to get more gumbermint money". Do you know the details?

I don't. Incredibly simplified, it's just the more dependents, the bigger the subsidies. Whether that's tax credits, aca, food stamps, etc.Eta: here's the first paragraph to qualify for snap:

Its gross monthly income that is, its income before any of the programs deductions are applied generally must be at or below 130 percent of the poverty line. For a family of three, the poverty line in federal fiscal year 2014 is $1,628 a month. Thus, 130 percent of the poverty line for a three-person family is $2,116 a month, or about $25,400 a year. The poverty level is higher for bigger families and lower for smaller families.[3]http://centeronbudget.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1269

It will screw them when their 4 kids that are under 7 now, are between 12-18

Per that link: "Step 6 SNAP Benefit: The maximum benefit in 2014 for a family of three is $497."



I can't imagine having extra kids is a net benefit for the finances.

3 more kids nets you $403 more a month. kids don't eat much in the beginning.

So ~ $135 a month per kid? People are having kids to grab that extra $135? 3 meals a day is ~ 90 meals a month. So ~ $1.50 per meal?

 

[DA RAIDERS]

my wife's friend had another kid, just so she would qualify for all the maximum aid

I'm always curious as to the math behind the "having more kids to get more gumbermint money". Do you know the details?

I don't. Incredibly simplified, it's just the more dependents, the bigger the subsidies. Whether that's tax credits, aca, food stamps, etc.Eta: here's the first paragraph to qualify for snap:

Its gross monthly income that is, its income before any of the programs deductions are applied generally must be at or below 130 percent of the poverty line. For a family of three, the poverty line in federal fiscal year 2014 is $1,628 a month. Thus, 130 percent of the poverty line for a three-person family is $2,116 a month, or about $25,400 a year. The poverty level is higher for bigger families and lower for smaller families.[3]http://centeronbudget.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1269

It will screw them when their 4 kids that are under 7 now, are between 12-18

Per that link: "Step 6 SNAP Benefit: The maximum benefit in 2014 for a family of three is $497."

I can't imagine having extra kids is a net benefit for the finances.

3 more kids nets you $403 more a month. kids don't eat much in the beginning.

So ~ $135 a month per kid? People are having kids to grab that extra $135? 3 meals a day is ~ 90 meals a month. So ~ $1.50 per meal?

I'm not saying she's smart or right or anything of the kind. And that's only one source of her handouts.

 

[Loan Sharks]

my wife's friend had another kid, just so she would qualify for all the maximum aid

I'm always curious as to the math behind the "having more kids to get more gumbermint money". Do you know the details?

I don't. Incredibly simplified, it's just the more dependents, the bigger the subsidies. Whether that's tax credits, aca, food stamps, etc.Eta: here's the first paragraph to qualify for snap:

Its gross monthly income that is, its income before any of the programs deductions are applied generally must be at or below 130 percent of the poverty line. For a family of three, the poverty line in federal fiscal year 2014 is $1,628 a month. Thus, 130 percent of the poverty line for a three-person family is $2,116 a month, or about $25,400 a year. The poverty level is higher for bigger families and lower for smaller families.[3]http://centeronbudget.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1269

It will screw them when their 4 kids that are under 7 now, are between 12-18

Per that link: "Step 6 SNAP Benefit: The maximum benefit in 2014 for a family of three is $497."



I can't imagine having extra kids is a net benefit for the finances.

3 more kids nets you $403 more a month. kids don't eat much in the beginning.

So ~ $135 a month per kid? People are having kids to grab that extra $135? 3 meals a day is ~ 90 meals a month. So ~ $1.50 per meal?

Snap is not the only program you qualify for. There is WIC and a whole slew of them.

You add them all together for the total benefit.

When I had my kids I told the social services lady that I didn't need any assistance and she said that I could not decline applying because it was for the kids not me and they would determine need.

It was some crazy amount of programs

SNAP,WIC,respite,transportation,rent,utilities, day care, car seats, caliworks pay, education.

I can't say for sure but it had to have been over 20 programs, because I kept getting rejection letters for months saying I didn't qualify.

 

[Insein]

To be fair...it is pretty time consuming to make an ice cream cake.

Does take some hours but its about 10 mins of actual work.

 

[tonydead]

Snap is not the only program you qualify for. There is WIC and a whole slew of them.


You add them all together for the total benefit.

When I had my kids I told the social services lady that I didn't need any assistance and she said that I could not decline applying because it was for the kids not me and they would determine need.

It was some crazy amount of programs

SNAP,WIC,respite,transportation,rent,utilities, day care, car seats, caliworks pay, education.

I can't say for sure but it had to have been over 20 programs, because I kept getting rejection letters for months saying I didn't qualify.

+Section 8 housing.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Have there been any studies done to determine how many welfare recipients are using the system as intended, and how many are lazy parasites? This is a debate that never ends and the answers always seem to depend on one's political leanings. Conservatives talk about welfare queens pooping out more babies so they can get more gubment money, and libs cry insensitivity and say that's an inaccurate stereotype. My guess is the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Why would we want of these people taking jobs over those that aren't lazy? Seems much more efficient if the lazy were all pushed to public assistance and those that are motivated actually had jobs. Unfortunately that is not how things are as "lazy" is distributed in approximately the same 8-12% (if my memory is correct) numbers across all income groups. Even without the study, I'm guessing that even if you have just a few coworkers a few of them are considered lazy no matter what you do or where you work.

 

[bostonfred]

Have there been any studies done to determine how many welfare recipients are using the system as intended, and how many are lazy parasites? This is a debate that never ends and the answers always seem to depend on one's political leanings. Conservatives talk about welfare queens pooping out more babies so they can get more gubment money, and libs cry insensitivity and say that's an inaccurate stereotype. My guess is the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The fair minded folks on either side will admit that both cases exist. The more important question is what to do with the information.Conservatives generally want to dump the problem on charities, which are themselves subsidized by the government through tax breaks, inefficiently distribute funds to things like AIDS and breast cancer research instead of heart disease and prostate cancer, or disproportionately favor ares with the most charitable donations, instead of the most need (e.g. people in Connecticut are unlikely to donate to the homeless in Kentucky), and which require multiple instances of overhead and marketing, as different charities have to 1) pay their management and other overhead, 2) do marketing and fund raising, and 3) communicate their available funds. So while it's easy to point to the inefficiencies of government programs, the flaws of the conservative "solution" are rarely discussed and potentially more costly. But the focus of the conservative plan always lies on the supposed evil of government, and conservatives would gladly trade the lives and security of our weakest people to make sure that nobody is unfairly raising their taxes.

Liberals tend to point to the neediest portion of the population, but that's because the intent of the safety net is to protect that portion. We fully acknowledge the existence of the welfare queen, but reject the notion that all or even the majority of government aid recipients fit that stereotype. Moreover, we accept that there will always be inefficiencies of a system that is intended to provide coverage to everyone who needs it, and prefer the inefficiencies of giving too much money to people who don't need it, as opposed to the inefficiencies of a free market charity system which has little to no accountability to help the hidden poor. And liberals tend to believe that this is a societal issue, and one that should be shared by everyone who works and pays taxes, which is highly unpopular with people who pay taxes and don't think it's fair that they be required to help the less fortunate. And since those taxes are disproportionately paid by the richest wage earners, it's no surprise that they're the ones waging class warfare on the poor by convincing the dullard lower class that the welfare queens significantly outnumber people who actually need help.

 

[amphibianbri]

This guy sees someone buy a ####### cake, decides its too expensive for them, then pats himself on the back for being able to afford a costco membership, a car, the time and gas to go across town 20 extra minutes on the weekend, the space in his home to store huge boxes of bulk goods, and the money to spend on things today that he wont use until tomorrow. But he doesn't take the time to ask if this is a single mom who is trying to help her kid have a cake with his friends so he will have some self confidence and wont feel like the poor kid who can't have a birthday party for reasons that have nothing to do with him, or if this mother is dealing with some other life issues like mental illness, substance abuse, or unemployment, or if this mother has the luxury to go on longer trips to the store or if it means that shed have to bring her youger baby in a car seat she can't afford or leave them with a babysitter who can't be bothered to watch a kid for a couple hours while she gets a two gallon jar of mayonnaise. He just says, this ladys stupid, and we shouldn't give her money anymore. Maybe he can spit on some homeless people on the way home and make himself feel even better.

No one should be buying a $41 cake with public benefits. Sorry.

You dont sound like someone who has walked a mile in those shoes. I hope for your sake you don't have to.

My issue is the example being set. You give young people self confidence by pushing them to educate themselves so they can be better off than you. You give young people self confidence by expressing your love for them and giving them your time and teaching them the right way to do things. I didn't have the best of everything growing up, but I was taught work ethic and delay self gratification. I now do very well. This $41 cake to me just looks like a commercial for generational irresponsibility.

 

[tonydead]

Have there been any studies done to determine how many welfare recipients are using the system as intended, and how many are lazy parasites? This is a debate that never ends and the answers always seem to depend on one's political leanings. Conservatives talk about welfare queens pooping out more babies so they can get more gubment money, and libs cry insensitivity and say that's an inaccurate stereotype. My guess is the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The fair minded folks on either side will admit that both cases exist. The more important question is what to do with the information.Conservatives generally want to dump the problem on charities, which are themselves subsidized by the government through tax breaks, inefficiently distribute funds to things like AIDS and breast cancer research instead of heart disease and prostate cancer, or disproportionately favor ares with the most charitable donations, instead of the most need (e.g. people in Connecticut are unlikely to donate to the homeless in Kentucky), and which require multiple instances of overhead and marketing, as different charities have to 1) pay their management and other overhead, 2) do marketing and fund raising, and 3) communicate their available funds. So while it's easy to point to the inefficiencies of government programs, the flaws of the conservative "solution" are rarely discussed and potentially more costly. But the focus of the conservative plan always lies on the supposed evil of government, and conservatives would gladly trade the lives and security of our weakest people to make sure that nobody is unfairly raising their taxes.

Liberals tend to point to the neediest portion of the population, but that's because the intent of the safety net is to protect that portion. We fully acknowledge the existence of the welfare queen, but reject the notion that all or even the majority of government aid recipients fit that stereotype. Moreover, we accept that there will always be inefficiencies of a system that is intended to provide coverage to everyone who needs it, and prefer the inefficiencies of giving too much money to people who don't need it, as opposed to the inefficiencies of a free market charity system which has little to no accountability to help the hidden poor. And liberals tend to believe that this is a societal issue, and one that should be shared by everyone who works and pays taxes, which is highly unpopular with people who pay taxes and don't think it's fair that they be required to help the less fortunate. And since those taxes are disproportionately paid by the richest wage earners, it's no surprise that they're the ones waging class warfare on the poor by convincing the dullard lower class that the welfare queens significantly outnumber people who actually need help.

I think a agree with this, except the conservative and liberal parts.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Have there been any studies done to determine how many welfare recipients are using the system as intended, and how many are lazy parasites? This is a debate that never ends and the answers always seem to depend on one's political leanings. Conservatives talk about welfare queens pooping out more babies so they can get more gubment money, and libs cry insensitivity and say that's an inaccurate stereotype. My guess is the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The fair minded folks on either side will admit that both cases exist. The more important question is what to do with the information.Conservatives generally want to dump the problem on charities, which are themselves subsidized by the government through tax breaks, inefficiently distribute funds to things like AIDS and breast cancer research instead of heart disease and prostate cancer, or disproportionately favor ares with the most charitable donations, instead of the most need (e.g. people in Connecticut are unlikely to donate to the homeless in Kentucky), and which require multiple instances of overhead and marketing, as different charities have to 1) pay their management and other overhead, 2) do marketing and fund raising, and 3) communicate their available funds. So while it's easy to point to the inefficiencies of government programs, the flaws of the conservative "solution" are rarely discussed and potentially more costly. But the focus of the conservative plan always lies on the supposed evil of government, and conservatives would gladly trade the lives and security of our weakest people to make sure that nobody is unfairly raising their taxes.

Liberals tend to point to the neediest portion of the population, but that's because the intent of the safety net is to protect that portion. We fully acknowledge the existence of the welfare queen, but reject the notion that all or even the majority of government aid recipients fit that stereotype. Moreover, we accept that there will always be inefficiencies of a system that is intended to provide coverage to everyone who needs it, and prefer the inefficiencies of giving too much money to people who don't need it, as opposed to the inefficiencies of a free market charity system which has little to no accountability to help the hidden poor. And liberals tend to believe that this is a societal issue, and one that should be shared by everyone who works and pays taxes, which is highly unpopular with people who pay taxes and don't think it's fair that they be required to help the less fortunate. And since those taxes are disproportionately paid by the richest wage earners, it's no surprise that they're the ones waging class warfare on the poor by convincing the dullard lower class that the welfare queens significantly outnumber people who actually need help.

I think a agree with this, except the conservative and liberal parts.

I agree with one part but the other part is complete bull#### and is tearing this country apart!

 

[amphibianbri]

This guy sees someone buy a ####### cake, decides its too expensive for them, then pats himself on the back for being able to afford a costco membership, a car, the time and gas to go across town 20 extra minutes on the weekend, the space in his home to store huge boxes of bulk goods, and the money to spend on things today that he wont use until tomorrow. But he doesn't take the time to ask if this is a single mom who is trying to help her kid have a cake with his friends so he will have some self confidence and wont feel like the poor kid who can't have a birthday party for reasons that have nothing to do with him, or if this mother is dealing with some other life issues like mental illness, substance abuse, or unemployment, or if this mother has the luxury to go on longer trips to the store or if it means that shed have to bring her youger baby in a car seat she can't afford or leave them with a babysitter who can't be bothered to watch a kid for a couple hours while she gets a two gallon jar of mayonnaise. He just says, this ladys stupid, and we shouldn't give her money anymore. Maybe he can spit on some homeless people on the way home and make himself feel even better.

No one should be buying a $41 cake with public benefits. Sorry.

"Mom, all I want for my birthday is an icecream cake like Charlie had at his party" What's a mom to do? Maybe the only way she could afford to get him anything at all was to starve herself for several weeks and buy a cake with the food stamps she saved up.. You don't know all the circumstances

Act like an adult, start teaching a kid about responsibility and what true love is (not a freaking $40 cake), and use it as a learning moment. Johnny, we can still have a nice cake, but it just won't cost $41. I had this done to me as a child, and I'm still alive and not destroyed mentally.

 

[BassNBrew]

Have there been any studies done to determine how many welfare recipients are using the system as intended, and how many are lazy parasites? This is a debate that never ends and the answers always seem to depend on one's political leanings. Conservatives talk about welfare queens pooping out more babies so they can get more gubment money, and libs cry insensitivity and say that's an inaccurate stereotype. My guess is the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The fair minded folks on either side will admit that both cases exist. The more important question is what to do with the information.Conservatives generally want to dump the problem on charities, which are themselves subsidized by the government through tax breaks, inefficiently distribute funds to things like AIDS and breast cancer research instead of heart disease and prostate cancer, or disproportionately favor ares with the most charitable donations, instead of the most need (e.g. people in Connecticut are unlikely to donate to the homeless in Kentucky), and which require multiple instances of overhead and marketing, as different charities have to 1) pay their management and other overhead, 2) do marketing and fund raising, and 3) communicate their available funds. So while it's easy to point to the inefficiencies of government programs, the flaws of the conservative "solution" are rarely discussed and potentially more costly. But the focus of the conservative plan always lies on the supposed evil of government, and conservatives would gladly trade the lives and security of our weakest people to make sure that nobody is unfairly raising their taxes.

Liberals tend to point to the neediest portion of the population, but that's because the intent of the safety net is to protect that portion. We fully acknowledge the existence of the welfare queen, but reject the notion that all or even the majority of government aid recipients fit that stereotype. Moreover, we accept that there will always be inefficiencies of a system that is intended to provide coverage to everyone who needs it, and prefer the inefficiencies of giving too much money to people who don't need it, as opposed to the inefficiencies of a free market charity system which has little to no accountability to help the hidden poor. And liberals tend to believe that this is a societal issue, and one that should be shared by everyone who works and pays taxes, which is highly unpopular with people who pay taxes and don't think it's fair that they be required to help the less fortunate. And since those taxes are disproportionately paid by the richest wage earners, it's no surprise that they're the ones waging class warfare on the poor by convincing the dullard lower class that the welfare queens significantly outnumber people who actually need help.

I liked it better when you spent time losing money to me in fantasy football rather than posting your socialist rants.

 

[Chaka]

This guy sees someone buy a ####### cake, decides its too expensive for them, then pats himself on the back for being able to afford a costco membership, a car, the time and gas to go across town 20 extra minutes on the weekend, the space in his home to store huge boxes of bulk goods, and the money to spend on things today that he wont use until tomorrow. But he doesn't take the time to ask if this is a single mom who is trying to help her kid have a cake with his friends so he will have some self confidence and wont feel like the poor kid who can't have a birthday party for reasons that have nothing to do with him, or if this mother is dealing with some other life issues like mental illness, substance abuse, or unemployment, or if this mother has the luxury to go on longer trips to the store or if it means that shed have to bring her youger baby in a car seat she can't afford or leave them with a babysitter who can't be bothered to watch a kid for a couple hours while she gets a two gallon jar of mayonnaise. He just says, this ladys stupid, and we shouldn't give her money anymore. Maybe he can spit on some homeless people on the way home and make himself feel even better.

No one should be buying a $41 cake with public benefits. Sorry.

You dont sound like someone who has walked a mile in those shoes. I hope for your sake you don't have to.

What difference does it make to you how they spend their fixed allotment? It doesn't mean they get more next month.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

On the face of it, whatever benefit is afforded to these folks should be able to be used in whatever way is allowed them legally.. I do not believe that someone struggling financially should be relegated to box cake birthdays. If they would like to budget their assets/benefits in order to make their child's B-day special, then that is up to them.

I don't think I'd personally spend $40 on a child's B-day cake. And I don't think it's smart use of that asset, but it's not my business..

At least we can know that they care to give there children a good day, rather than selling food-stamps to by drugs and alcohol..

 

[Chaka]

On the face of it, whatever benefit is afforded to these folks should be able to be used in whatever way is allowed them legally.. I do not believe that someone struggling financially should be relegated to box cake birthdays. If they would like to budget their assets/benefits in order to make their child's B-day special, then that is up to them.

I don't think I'd personally spend $40 on a child's B-day cake. And I don't think it's smart use of that asset, but it's not my business..

At least we can know that they care to give there children a good day, rather than selling food-stamps to by drugs and alcohol..

 

[Clifford]

Replace "birthday cake" with "executive bonuses" and "food stamps" with "government bailout funds" and "$41" with "several tens of millions of dollars" and no one gives a ####.

In terms of basic street smarts I really do think American is the dumbest 1st world country on earth.

 

[McGarnicle]

Have there been any studies done to determine how many welfare recipients are using the system as intended, and how many are lazy parasites? This is a debate that never ends and the answers always seem to depend on one's political leanings. Conservatives talk about welfare queens pooping out more babies so they can get more gubment money, and libs cry insensitivity and say that's an inaccurate stereotype. My guess is the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The fair minded folks on either side will admit that both cases exist. The more important question is what to do with the information.Conservatives generally want to dump the problem on charities, which are themselves subsidized by the government through tax breaks, inefficiently distribute funds to things like AIDS and breast cancer research instead of heart disease and prostate cancer, or disproportionately favor ares with the most charitable donations, instead of the most need (e.g. people in Connecticut are unlikely to donate to the homeless in Kentucky), and which require multiple instances of overhead and marketing, as different charities have to 1) pay their management and other overhead, 2) do marketing and fund raising, and 3) communicate their available funds. So while it's easy to point to the inefficiencies of government programs, the flaws of the conservative "solution" are rarely discussed and potentially more costly. But the focus of the conservative plan always lies on the supposed evil of government, and conservatives would gladly trade the lives and security of our weakest people to make sure that nobody is unfairly raising their taxes.

Liberals tend to point to the neediest portion of the population, but that's because the intent of the safety net is to protect that portion. We fully acknowledge the existence of the welfare queen, but reject the notion that all or even the majority of government aid recipients fit that stereotype. Moreover, we accept that there will always be inefficiencies of a system that is intended to provide coverage to everyone who needs it, and prefer the inefficiencies of giving too much money to people who don't need it, as opposed to the inefficiencies of a free market charity system which has little to no accountability to help the hidden poor. And liberals tend to believe that this is a societal issue, and one that should be shared by everyone who works and pays taxes, which is highly unpopular with people who pay taxes and don't think it's fair that they be required to help the less fortunate. And since those taxes are disproportionately paid by the richest wage earners, it's no surprise that they're the ones waging class warfare on the poor by convincing the dullard lower class that the welfare queens significantly outnumber people who actually need help.

I think it's finally time for the Great Purge. No welfare for 5 years. Then we'll see who is truly needy and who is just lazy. It's very Darwinian in its approach but would be the best thing to happen to our species since the polio vaccine.

 

[James Daulton]

Replace "birthday cake" with "executive bonuses" and "food stamps" with "government bailout funds" and "$41" with "several tens of millions of dollars" and no one gives a ####.

In terms of basic street smarts I really do think American is the dumbest 1st world country on earth.

So many folks worry about lazy people taking advantage of welfare but don't bat on eye that so many executives game the system in this country to pull in multi, multi million dollar salaries. These folks have rubber stamp Boards of peers and way too much influence in government. But that's all ok because it's under the guise of capitalism.

Let's focus on someone who gets a couple of hundred bucks a month and not the folks with the $25M golden parachutes.

 

[Joe T]

On the face of it, whatever benefit is afforded to these folks should be able to be used in whatever way is allowed them legally.. I do not believe that someone struggling financially should be relegated to box cake birthdays. If they would like to budget their assets/benefits in order to make their child's B-day special, then that is up to them.

I don't think I'd personally spend $40 on a child's B-day cake. And I don't think it's smart use of that asset, but it's not my business..

At least we can know that they care to give there children a good day, rather than selling food-stamps to by drugs and alcohol..

 

[Chaka]

I find it funny that so many hard core conservatives want to tell people what they should and should not be able to purchase.

 

[Henry Ford]

I find it funny that so many hard core conservatives want to tell people what they should and should not be able to purchase.

Even when it's in someone else's pocket, they still think of it as "my money."

 

[Joe T]

I find it funny that so many hard core conservatives want to tell people what they should and should not be able to purchase.

I think you are missing the point, but let me ask a simpler question.

Are you okay with a person on welfare driving a Ferrari?

 

[squistion]

I find it funny that so many hard core conservatives want to tell people what they should and should not be able to purchase.

I think you are missing the point, but let me ask a simpler question.

Are you okay with a person on welfare driving a Ferrari?

 

[Freelove]

Have there been any studies done to determine how many welfare recipients are using the system as intended, and how many are lazy parasites? This is a debate that never ends and the answers always seem to depend on one's political leanings. Conservatives talk about welfare queens pooping out more babies so they can get more gubment money, and libs cry insensitivity and say that's an inaccurate stereotype. My guess is the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The fair minded folks on either side will admit that both cases exist. The more important question is what to do with the information.Conservatives generally want to dump the problem on charities, which are themselves subsidized by the government through tax breaks, inefficiently distribute funds to things like AIDS and breast cancer research instead of heart disease and prostate cancer, or disproportionately favor ares with the most charitable donations, instead of the most need (e.g. people in Connecticut are unlikely to donate to the homeless in Kentucky), and which require multiple instances of overhead and marketing, as different charities have to 1) pay their management and other overhead, 2) do marketing and fund raising, and 3) communicate their available funds. So while it's easy to point to the inefficiencies of government programs, the flaws of the conservative "solution" are rarely discussed and potentially more costly. But the focus of the conservative plan always lies on the supposed evil of government, and conservatives would gladly trade the lives and security of our weakest people to make sure that nobody is unfairly raising their taxes.

Liberals tend to point to the neediest portion of the population, but that's because the intent of the safety net is to protect that portion. We fully acknowledge the existence of the welfare queen, but reject the notion that all or even the majority of government aid recipients fit that stereotype. Moreover, we accept that there will always be inefficiencies of a system that is intended to provide coverage to everyone who needs it, and prefer the inefficiencies of giving too much money to people who don't need it, as opposed to the inefficiencies of a free market charity system which has little to no accountability to help the hidden poor. And liberals tend to believe that this is a societal issue, and one that should be shared by everyone who works and pays taxes, which is highly unpopular with people who pay taxes and don't think it's fair that they be required to help the less fortunate. And since those taxes are disproportionately paid by the richest wage earners, it's no surprise that they're the ones waging class warfare on the poor by convincing the dullard lower class that the welfare queens significantly outnumber people who actually need help.

I think it's finally time for the Great Purge. No welfare for 5 years. Then we'll see who is truly needy and who is just lazy. It's very Darwinian in its approach but would be the best thing to happen to our species since the polio vaccine.

As long as we pull the plug on handouts for both ends of the economic bell curve at once, I'm in.

 

[Henry Ford]

I find it funny that so many hard core conservatives want to tell people what they should and should not be able to purchase.

I think you are missing the point, but let me ask a simpler question.

Are you okay with a person on welfare driving a Ferrari?

If they can make it work within that budget and aren't committing fraud, I'd be extremely impressed with a person on welfare driving a Ferrari. Not just okay with it.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I find it funny that so many hard core conservatives want to tell people what they should and should not be able to purchase.

I think you are missing the point, but let me ask a simpler question.

Are you okay with a person on welfare driving a Ferrari?

Linky

 

[matttyl]

I find it funny that so many hard core conservatives want to tell people what they should and should not be able to purchase.

I think you are missing the point, but let me ask a simpler question.

Are you okay with a person on welfare driving a Ferrari?

While I have no link, I do personally know a guy with two Porsches who retired early (late 50s currently) who is living off of personal wealth and purposefully only taking a small taxable income in order to get an sizeable ACA subsidy for he and his wife. Do two porsches equal one Ferarri? Does an ACA subsidy equal welfare?

 

[Joe T]

I find it funny that so many hard core conservatives want to tell people what they should and should not be able to purchase.

I think you are missing the point, but let me ask a simpler question.

Are you okay with a person on welfare driving a Ferrari?

If they can make it work within that budget and aren't committing fraud, I'd be extremely impressed with a person on welfare driving a Ferrari. Not just okay with it.

So you view welfare as more of a gift than a social need. Makes sense.

 

[squistion]

I find it funny that so many hard core conservatives want to tell people what they should and should not be able to purchase.

I think you are missing the point, but let me ask a simpler question.

Are you okay with a person on welfare driving a Ferrari?

While I have no link, I do personally know a guy with two Porsches who retired early (late 50s currently) who is living off of personal wealth and purposefully only taking a small taxable income in order to get an sizeable ACA subsidy for he and his wife. Do two porsches equal one Ferarri? Does an ACA subsidy equal welfare?

No. I don't think so, at least not in way the OP probably meant welfare. And I would speculate that oil companies like Exxon get more government subsidies than all the people with ACA subsidies combined, yet we don't see complaints here about that in this forum over that from those who have an issue with food stamps.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Replace "birthday cake" with "executive bonuses" and "food stamps" with "government bailout funds" and "$41" with "several tens of millions of dollars" and no one gives a ####.

In terms of basic street smarts I really do think American is the dumbest 1st world country on earth.

So many folks worry about lazy people taking advantage of welfare but don't bat on eye that so many executives game the system in this country to pull in multi, multi million dollar salaries. These folks have rubber stamp Boards of peers and way too much influence in government. But that's all ok because it's under the guise of capitalism.

Let's focus on someone who gets a couple of hundred bucks a month and not the folks with the $25M golden parachutes.

These are the two best posts in this thread. It is a shame that the ignorant people will never appreciate them.

 

[-jb-]

Replace "birthday cake" with "executive bonuses" and "food stamps" with "government bailout funds" and "$41" with "several tens of millions of dollars" and no one gives a ####.

In terms of basic street smarts I really do think American is the dumbest 1st world country on earth.

So many folks worry about lazy people taking advantage of welfare but don't bat on eye that so many executives game the system in this country to pull in multi, multi million dollar salaries. These folks have rubber stamp Boards of peers and way too much influence in government. But that's all ok because it's under the guise of capitalism.

Let's focus on someone who gets a couple of hundred bucks a month and not the folks with the $25M golden parachutes.

These are the two best posts in this thread. It is a shame that the ignorant people will never appreciate them.

Yes, and no. The point that corruption is everywhere is true, but to claim that you can/are only pissed about one of them is dumb.

 

[Henry Ford]

I find it funny that so many hard core conservatives want to tell people what they should and should not be able to purchase.

I think you are missing the point, but let me ask a simpler question.

Are you okay with a person on welfare driving a Ferrari?

While I have no link, I do personally know a guy with two Porsches who retired early (late 50s currently) who is living off of personal wealth and purposefully only taking a small taxable income in order to get an sizeable ACA subsidy for he and his wife. Do two porsches equal one Ferarri? Does an ACA subsidy equal welfare?

No.

 

[Henry Ford]

I find it funny that so many hard core conservatives want to tell people what they should and should not be able to purchase.

I think you are missing the point, but let me ask a simpler question.

Are you okay with a person on welfare driving a Ferrari?

If they can make it work within that budget and aren't committing fraud, I'd be extremely impressed with a person on welfare driving a Ferrari. Not just okay with it.

So you view welfare as more of a gift than a social need. Makes sense.

No, I view people who think you can afford a Ferrari and still get Welfare as insane.

 

[matttyl]

I find it funny that so many hard core conservatives want to tell people what they should and should not be able to purchase.

I think you are missing the point, but let me ask a simpler question.

Are you okay with a person on welfare driving a Ferrari?

While I have no link, I do personally know a guy with two Porsches who retired early (late 50s currently) who is living off of personal wealth and purposefully only taking a small taxable income in order to get an sizeable ACA subsidy for he and his wife. Do two porsches equal one Ferarri? Does an ACA subsidy equal welfare?

No.

Well, by definition it is. Not the type of welfare that this thread is about, granted, but it is a form of welfare none the less.

 

[Joe T]

Replace "birthday cake" with "executive bonuses" and "food stamps" with "government bailout funds" and "$41" with "several tens of millions of dollars" and no one gives a ####.

In terms of basic street smarts I really do think American is the dumbest 1st world country on earth.

So many folks worry about lazy people taking advantage of welfare but don't bat on eye that so many executives game the system in this country to pull in multi, multi million dollar salaries. These folks have rubber stamp Boards of peers and way too much influence in government. But that's all ok because it's under the guise of capitalism.

Let's focus on someone who gets a couple of hundred bucks a month and not the folks with the $25M golden parachutes.

These are the two best posts in this thread. It is a shame that the ignorant people will never appreciate them.

Food stamps cost the U.S. roughly $100 billion per year. Comparing a $41 cake to multi-million dollar salaries is not a good post for this or any thread.

And no one here is saying to ignore corporate fraud and only go after waste in the food stamp system. HTH

 

[Henry Ford]

I find it funny that so many hard core conservatives want to tell people what they should and should not be able to purchase.

I think you are missing the point, but let me ask a simpler question.

Are you okay with a person on welfare driving a Ferrari?

While I have no link, I do personally know a guy with two Porsches who retired early (late 50s currently) who is living off of personal wealth and purposefully only taking a small taxable income in order to get an sizeable ACA subsidy for he and his wife. Do two porsches equal one Ferarri? Does an ACA subsidy equal welfare?

No.

Well, by definition it is. Not the type of welfare that this thread is about, granted, but it is a form of welfare none the less.

So you understand the context of the discussion and the context of my answer.

 

[Henry Ford]

If we want to expand the definition of welfare for this discussion to include the ACA subsidy, there's an awful lot of rich-folk help/subsidy/etc. that's going to get caught in that net. Which will probably lead me to have less of a problem with someone driving a Ferrari while getting "welfare."

 

[Clifford]

Well, one gets talked about constantly by people on the right, the other hardly ever gets discussed at all in comparison.

If we want to cut entitlements, let's cut them to everyone and get serious about saving money. No more entitlement programs for the poor or corporations or tax loopholes protecting the rich. No more farm subsidies. No more "too big to fail" bailouts. No more foreign aid. No more automatic deals to MIC.

But when you start talking about that people start to pull away from the table.