Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God have you got alot to learn . The is not the US of YOUR generation apparently . The summer lunch program has saved so many children from going hungry .. or worse . This is not the US you ( or maybe even I ) grew up with . EveryDAY is like a war to survive here for many of us and is as close to a third world country as you can get without actually being one . Sorry but I volunteer a lot and I use some of these programs AND I work.
It would take me forever to explain to you how these programs work or don't work together so I won't . NO one gets all of these programs you mentioned all together or automatically and I can ASSURE YOU NO FOODBANK HERE IN THE US IS ANYTHING LIKE A SUPERMARKET
You are selfish and just plain wrong .
Umm, no. I personally am aware of TWO food banks within driving distance of
me that are like supermarkets. As a matter of FACT, one of them IS a former
supermarket !
And I am also intricately aware that there are overlapping services. I stand
by everything I said. I see it, have seen it, and my father was a Senior Supervisor
in the Dept of Health and Human Services. Moreover, I've received a score of
+ reputation votes on my original post here.
Sorry, but you won't make any progress with me.
It's time for the games to stop. Americans need to roll back the scales from their eyes.
"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prisons..."
"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir..."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
So. Back to the math. If you want to define a set of government programs such as TANF, SNAP, Medicaid, WIC, Hud Vouchers and SSI as "means-tested entitlement programs", then okay. We can define a category of, say, "means-tested entitlement programs" and only include those. But now you need a category to fit all of the other free money handouts that are still need-based, but not financially so. That money is still going out, you still have to look at it, you can't just ignore it. So, what would you like to call that category? "Non-means tested entitlement programs" perhaps? To include things like SS, Medicare, and unemployment? Then we can look at how much money is going to means-tested entitlement programs, how much money is going to non-means-tested entitlement programs, and how much money is going to the other stuff. So what do you think?
Let me try to help you get back on track. This was your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbab5
I am helping poor women get back on their feet. I am a full time working mom of two small children. I make about $85K a year. About 25% of that goes to income taxes. About 37% of that goes to social entitlement programs (minus SS and Medicare, see previous post). That's $5,737 a year I am donating to this woman and people like her. Now, which do you want me to do, hold her hand or give her money? I can't do both. How about your hold her hand, I give her money, and you quit telling me I'm evil and heartless for not giving her more. Deal?
Now how about telling me how you arrived at your claim that 37% of your tax money directly benefits "this woman and people like her" (your words not mine) Please keep in mind you were talking about "poor women getting on their feet", not elderly women disabled women or women who are receiving unemployment compensation or workers comp; just regular old poor people (i.e. people on welfare)
Completely aware here that there are special needs people. My autistic son is one. That isn't what we are talking about here. And no one should be comparing this to people on the street the are stupid by choice. If someone is just ignorant they are choosing not to learn or pay attention. This is really part of the whole problem. People being stupid and handicapping themselves. It creates people like yourself that don't know what a real disability is.
If you read this whole thread you would first notice that people are saying that not all people taking advantage of this have needy kids. Its free and requires no proof shown to use it so many taking advantage of this program could be feeding their kids at home on their own dime.
Out of curiosity what is your degree in?
50k is just a number I used as an example. The point was, if you spend more than you make you have nothing. If you don't planning for retirement early enough you won't have enough. Plain and simple and that what the list USAgismo posted comes down to. That and the reality that any job can disappear. Schools can't teach this. If you don't want it to happen to your own kids you have to teach them the values yourself. After having two kids in the school system I've seen that the public school system exists to employ adults rather than teach kids. I've met too many horrible teachers and once they are in they cannot be fired. They also push the college agenda about just getting any degree or you'll starve. It's a lie. College has to be planned smart or its useless. People need to stop letting the village raise their children.
Your last paragraph actually does blame things on robots.
My uncle was rendered deaf by doctors when he was a baby. It messed him up pretty bad. He's on disability for life because of it. A long time friend of mine has an autistic son. I spend a lot of time with him and his son. My cousin has down syndrome. I personally know many many legitimately special needs people. They are not who I am talking about.
Personally, I don't really care if we spend some tax money to feed kids that may or may not be needy. A huge portion of my taxes go to Israel so they can provide their people with universal healthcare and bombs for the Palestinians.
A huge portion of my taxes go to corporate welfare. Churches pay no taxes and I have to make up the difference. Same with Nascar. Oil subsidies, sugar subsidies, farm subsidies, all these programs that benefit billion dollar companies and you're concerned about some possibly not needy kids getting some food.
This is why we can't have nice things.
People have no problem showering the wealthy with our cash, but give a few pennies to the poor and dear sweet jesus they have a fit.
My degree is in accounting. A dreadfully boring occupation.
I like that you think I AM blaming anything on robots when I clearly said IN THE FUTURE.
I can't blame anything on anything that hasn't happened yet.
3 billion dollars a year. How much does the school lunch program cost? Less than half a billion. 489.5 million in 2015
Why is it ok to give 3 billion to a country doing well enough to provide it's citizens with a higher quality of life than us, but not ok to spend 1/6 of that on our own citizens?
The stereotype of vast hordes of "lazy bums who don't want to work" - typically portrayed of certain colors and creeds - is simply false.
Instead of demanding the starvation of the working poor, perhaps the "compassionate conservatives" should ask why they are so willing to fund corporate welfare - the kind that forces such low wages that the tax payers need to pick up the tab? And that doesn't even begin to touch upon the laughable boot-licking of corporate apologists who have no problems with jobs vanishing from this nation provided "somebody else" ends up as part of the new working poor once the good jobs are gone. But, hey - they probably "deserved it" anyway, or so the mindset goes in this nation.
It's a disgrace. Every last one of you who sneers at the poor is just one serious accident, illness, or other misfortune away from such a fate yourself. Try to show a little humanity instead of eagerly walking all over your fellow man.
3 billion dollars a year. How much does the school lunch program cost? Less than half a billion. 489.5 million in 2015
Why is it ok to give 3 billion to a country doing well enough to provide it's citizens with a higher quality of life than us, but not ok to spend 1/6 of that on our own citizens?
I think plenty of people aren't too fond of the U.S. taking care of everyone. I'm including myself here. The problem I have (and probably plenty of others) have is people on welfare who are abusing it.
I think plenty of people aren't too fond of the U.S. taking care of everyone. I'm including myself here. The problem I have (and probably plenty of others) have is people on welfare who are abusing it.
I think plenty of people aren't too fond of the U.S. taking care of everyone. I'm including myself here. The problem I have (and probably plenty of others) have is people on welfare who are abusing it.
I think we all share your feeling about that. But just because a program doesn't work 100% of the way it's supposed to 100% of the time shouldn't be a reason to discontinue it.
I see the same thing on vaccination threads. People think ALL vaccination is evil because they can bring up examples of a FEW people who have had reactions to the vaccines and a FEW people who got sick anyway. They think vaccines should work 100% of the time on 100% of the people with 0% of side effects and think vaccines should be banned if they don't.
There's even a name for this kind of thinking. If I find it, I'll post it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
