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.
you are not informed, informedconsent. yes, it is unusual. why do you spread this propaganda? there is no way people are recieving 6000 dollars in food stamps. anyways, food is so plentiful in america, it's not even a big deal. that's why it's an easy giveaway. people get 100 dollars per person. if one is making barely enough to even cover basic expenses, the food stamps are cut off. that means someone making 600 dollars a month is cut off from food stamps.
people also receive help with housing subsidies based on their income. most housing programs are based on low-income housing, not free housing. that's called the projects and most people don't want to live in them.
Just google "$500 per month in food stamps" and see the hits.
FWIW that's more than I budget for food. I try to keep my bill under $100 per week by shopping sales and buy the store brand. That includes various snacks and a 6-12 pack of store brand soda..not like it's just rice and beans.
Stuff like this gets me mad because these same people getting $$$ in food stamps also have the kids eating three meals a day for free in school.
Is that considered double dipping ?
Why not? The recipient is gaining the financial benefit of such.
The sentence was rather self-explanatory. Inkind transfers are not disposable income, i.e., discretionary spending.
As for their being economic benefits, yes they are and without them the total discretionary/disposable income would be, as I pointed out, a negative $12,000 some odd dollars.
Now as to why folks are flocking to receive benefits , as I and others have pointed out ad nasseum, TANF is a 5 year total life time benefit, so your single parent of 4 has a total of 5 years before that 2,040 dollars dries up. LIHEAP and Section 8 rent subsidies only pay an portion of the expenses, so once we subtract actual cost... I think a little bit more realistic outlook on the life styles of the poor and unfamous might not appear to be as attractive as you pretend that it is.
And you've not proved it 100% accurate. Since there's one obvious mistake what reason is there to believe there are no others?
The mistake is in the title, which may not have even been written by the article's author - a frequent occurrence in the news media. The article states the information in more detail, and is consistent with the chart.
Quote:
And once again, why does the $60K column contain no value(s) for benefits?
Wow. You really aren't understanding this at all. The $60K cloumn contains no values for benefits because they are not eligible for and therefore do not receive the taxpayer-funded entitlement benefits listed.
Stuff like this gets me mad because these same people getting $$$ in food stamps also have the kids eating three meals a day for free in school.
Is that considered double dipping ?
I know that details don't matter much to you, but that is possibly 2 meals, five days a week, except on holidays, breaks and summer vacation and even then 52% who qualify receive free lunches the other pay a reduced cost 10% or 38% pay full freight for the program that subsidizes the entire schools meal program.
Stuff like this gets me mad because these same people getting $$$ in food stamps also have the kids eating three meals a day for free in school.
Is that considered double dipping ?
Yes, but that happens because as we've already discovered, no one is keeping track of who's cross-utilizing the various taxpayer-funded entitlement benefits, and therefore double dipping (or more) at the taxpayers' expense.
Maybe as more of this info gets out, people will finally realize that there's a sizable subculture of Americans who are not only functioning as non-productive resource-draining citizens, but that they're actually actively gaming the entitlement system, to boot.
I don't disagree that people who make slightly more than people who qualify for assistance programs are getting totally hosed by society. But it seems to me the argument here is comparing apples with oranges, existing only so people who make $60,000 think people living on minimum wage are living better than them, which isn't true. (Again, you can't compare two different standards of living and call them equal.)
I agree completely. Rep added.
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.
, as I and others have pointed out ad nasseum, TANF is a 5 year total life time benefit, so your single parent of 4 has a total of 5 years before that 2,040 dollars dries up. LIHEAP and Section 8 rent subsidies only pay an portion of the expenses, so once we subtract actual cost... I think a little bit more realistic outlook on the life styles of the poor and unfamous might not appear to be as attractive as you pretend that it is.
