Food Stamps In Crosshairs Of Republicans' Plan To Save Military

[KUchief25]

Hmmmmm I thought Obammer said if you like your current insurance you can keep it?? I guess just another in the string of lies he throws out. I'm sure he doesn't even know what the teleprompter is saying anymore just reads it and then goes looking for his golf clubs.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Allow me, your stats are off.

I'll give you that they are old (and come from the EIA's web-site).

Originally Posted by ovcatto

There are 114,235,966 households (of course that doesn't include the 1.5 +/- homeless).

Of course it doesn't include the "homeless" (snicker). The "homeless" are living exactly where they want to be living. Come round to 12th and Race and I'll introduce you to, um, you know, "homeless" (snicker) people that have been "homeless" for years; as in before I joined this forum; as in while I was working at the federal courthouse back is 2002.

It isn't possible to help those people, thanks to *******s and the ACLU who have taken every opportunity to legally challenge an attempt at providing real assistance (and no, real assistance does not including throwing money at the "homeless" to feel good).

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Basic video subscribers is 58 million not 90 and that number has been in steady decline since the beginning of the recession.

So, what, you're competing for this week's Göbbels Award?

Basic subscribers? So they're frittering away $80 per month instead of $120 to $180. Wow, thanks, I feel so much better now knowing that these people have a consciousness and they are only willing to rape tax-payers rather than rape and sodomize tax-payers.

Steady decline you say? Let's see what J D Powers says:

WESTLAKE VILLAGE, (MMD Newswire) October 13, 2011 -- Growth in residential television service revenues is being fueled by increased penetration of DVR hardware and additional viewing services, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2011 U.S. Residential Television Service Satisfaction StudySM released today.

U.S. Residential Television Service Satisfaction Study Released by J.D. Power and Associates (http://www.mmdnewswire.com/cable-and-satellite-television-71702.html - broken link)

Let's see what Comcast and Dish have to say about the matter:

According to the Dish Network 2011 10K, there are approximately 99 million households in the US that subscribe to cable or satellite television. Cable television companies supply 58% of the market; Satellite accounts for 34%; and Telecom companies represent the remaining 8%.

Comcast And Dish Best-Of-Breed Among Cable And Satellite Providers - Seeking Alpha

So ~99 Million Households in the US get cable or satellite.

You say there are 114,235,966 Households so that would actually be 86.6% of Households.

Okay, so 86.6% isn't 90% but then I've already admitted my data was old EIA data (yes, those services use energy so of course the EIA is concerned/interested).

Anyway, my stats were spot on.

I claimed 99 Million households have cable or satellite or both, because that is what the Cable/Satellite industry claims: 99 Million Households have cable or satellite or both.

I don't stoop to levels of cherry-picking numbers in order to falsely skew people's opinions.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Internet usage is 71.06%, 68% of which is dial-up. Only 14.57% of those with part-time jobs have internet access in the home.

http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Nielse...rt-Q3-2011.pdf

At the bottom of Page #2, it says that 3/4 of US TV Households Subscribe to Broadband.

Have you disingenuously redefined broadband as, um, "dial-up?"

How Göbbelesque.

Nearly a million more homes are subscribing to broadband while skipping a traditional paid TV subscription. There are 5.1 million broadcast-only/broadband homes, compared to 80.8 million cableplus/
broadband homes and 22.3 million homes that subscribe to cable-plus and no broadband. Though broadcast only/broadband homes comprise the smallest subscriber group, the number of these homes has
increased by 22.8 percent since Q3 2010.

Let's read. Here's what we're interested in:

80.8 Million Households have cable plus broadband, while 5.1 Million Households have broadband and no cable.

Let's do the 5th Grade Math together:

80.8 Million
+5.1 Million
--------------
85.9 Million Households with Broadband --- not "dial-up."

Oooops.

Again, my freaking stats are spot on.

I claimed 90 Million Households have internet - broadband, dial-up -- it doesn't matter. Nielsen reports that 85.9 Million Households have internet consisting of broadband, not "dial-up."

If you look on Page #6 at Table 10, you will see the following:

5.1 Million Households have Broadband Internet, but no Cable/Satellite

80.8 Million Households have Broadband Internet and Cable or Satellite

22.3 Million Households have Cable or Satellite, but either have no Broadband Internet or they they have Narrowband (Dial-Up).

There are only 5.8 Million Households having no Cable, no Satellite, no Broadband and no Dial-up.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

I could parse the statistics in much more detail but would it matter, I think not.

Oh, please do parse the statistics.

You got punked.

And badly.

Parsing statistics (and punking)...

Mircea

Originally Posted by 70Ford

Most fifth graders understand that food stamps help keep people out of poverty, enabling them to buy awesome, amazing luxury items, such as $15 dollar a month (GOOD GOD THAT'S 50 CENTS A DAY!) dial up internet service and maybe some basic cable (30 bucks a month, a dollar a day) to entertain themselves and their kids, since they won't be jetting off to Switzerland any time soon.
1/3 of Americans don't use fast Internet | TechCrunch

According to the FCC, about 93 million Americans don’t use fast, broadband Internet, citing cost and complexity as a factor in their refusal to enter the 20th century.
The study, below, found that 80 million adults and 13 million children either still use dial-up or don’t use the Internet at all at home.

Well congratulations to both of you for showing your True Colors and how you'll come up with any number of freaking sorry-ass excuses to justify your desire to have other people fund the life-styles of idiots.

You Stats are wrong. You must be competing for the Göbbels Award of the Week, too.

"The study, below, found that 80 million adults and 13 million children"

Um, how many Households is that?

You do understand the difference between an household and a person, don't you?

Originally Posted by 70Ford

I think you should speak to other *******s. Perhaps one with a brain.

Well, seeing how you do not understand the distinction between persons and households, that wouldn't be you.

Food Stamps are a last resort. I don't have cable or satellite. Perhaps I should get Food Stamps so that I can have cable or satellite. It is not my responsibility to entertain people, nor is it my responsibility to pay the entertainment costs for other people.

And how will people ever learn financial common sense and financial responsibility if you do not force them to do so? People will learn that faster, when they are forced to make choices.

Laughing at the superior intellect...

Mircea

[chielgirl]

Originally Posted by itshim

Uh you do know that prior to the internet, kids functioned just fine right?

With your logic, why do people need internal water sources, plumbing and electricity?

Computers and internet are basic requirements in schools today. I guess you want people writing with a stone on a piece of slate. How effective!

[chielgirl]

Originally Posted by brooklynight

My sister in law was saying the same thing last week. She was a contractor who has worked in many different Government civilian teams. According to her many people come in an hour late and leave an hour early. Some even took 2 hour lunch breaks and before they started clamping down, go out to lunch and not even come back. And when they where at work hardly did any sort of work. Many of these people make around 80,000 to 90,000 dollars a year, one guy made $170,000.

She was sick and tired of having to doing other people's work that she quit and took a job that paid less. Too many people think that just because we are paying money for defense, it will make us safer. A lot of that money is also wasted by Haliburton and Blackwater as well.

That's a management problem and not inherent to the civil service system.
I've seen contractors do absolutely nothing and since they're not required to follow any rules/requirements not specifically set up by their contract and their contract supervisor (not on site), they've done absolutely nothing and you can't get rid of them until the contract expires.
Does that mean that every contractor is the same, no.
But nice broad brush you're using for not having any personal experience.

A) Anecdote does not equal data;
B) You have no idea what these people make;
C) Easy to blame others than look at your part;
D) No one in federal service makes $170k. Here's the General Service Schedule for 2012: 2012 General Schedule (GS) Locality Pay Tables

Even a GS-15 (not so common) in the DC area does not make $170k.
http://www.opm.gov/oca/12tables/pdf/DCB.pdf

Should we get rid of waste, absolutely.
And that's being done, but there's no bad management in every organization, private and public.
That's the issue to deal with, not to blame every federal worker.

[chielgirl]

Originally Posted by OICU812

...meanwhile.... the dems are trying to balance the budget by gutting the military and sticking it to the troops.


The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched.

Under the new plan, the Pentagon would get the bulk of its savings by targeting under-65 and Medicare-eligible military retirees through a tiered increase in annual Tricare premiums that will be based on yearly retirement pay.

Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.

This of course is going on while the president gives a campaign speech to our troops at Fort Stewart, stating how he has their back.

OWW! The President & First Lady GET CUTESY At Fort Stewart | The Young, Black, and Fabulous

Obama Goes on Collectivist Rant In Front of Troops - President Obama - Fox Nation

Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

Might want to look at what those numbers are.
Federal workers pay for their benefits; they are subsidized for some of their health care, as are private employees.
What did Tri-Care cost before and what will it cost now? Try answering this question.
You know that the taxpayer pays for the benefit for retired and/or disabled veterans for the entirety of their lives.

A little research goes a long way: TRICARE Cost Co-Pay Schedule | Military.com
TRICARE - Military Health Care - Military Benefits | Military.com

Retired military members receive retirement after 20 years (that can be 37 or 38); taxpayers pay them retirement benefits for the remainder of their lives; they also pay for their health benefits.
They can go on with another career. After all, 37 is not so old to do so.

[wutitiz]

Wait a minute, I thought we all agreed that 'in the crosshairs' was hate speech.


Is "Crosshairs" Now Hate Speech? - YouTube

OP please apologize and retract. Otherwise you're just as guilty as Sarah Palin!

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by chielgirl

Might want to look at what those numbers are.
Federal workers pay for their benefits; they are subsidized for some of their health care, as are private employees.
What did Tri-Care cost before and what will it cost now? Try answering this question.
You know that the taxpayer pays for the benefit for retired and/or disabled veterans for the entirety of their lives.

A little research goes a long way: TRICARE Cost Co-Pay Schedule | Military.com
TRICARE - Military Health Care - Military Benefits | Military.com

Retired military members receive retirement after 20 years (that can be 37 or 38); taxpayers pay them retirement benefits for the remainder of their lives; they also pay for their health benefits.
They can go on with another career. After all, 37 is not so old to do so.

FWIW, Walgreens won't even except TRICARE insurance for prescriptions, and a few private medical practices won't accept patients with TRICARE insurance either. I guess it's all part of a grand plan by Obama, make TRICARE so expensive and so worthless, that retirees will have no other choice but to drop this part of their retirement benefit.

So what's your argument, that the military occupation is comparable in pay, duties and circumstance to any of the government employees?

Twenty years of servitude to the nation, where they live in tents, cramped and hostile conditions, fight in wars, or are living on ships for nine month out of the year, not to mention forfeiting many of their Constitutional right, freedoms and protections, and that is if they survive after all of that.

Duty, honor and commitment to the protection of the nation, are these the only rewards and incentives you want to use as enticements for men and women to serve twenty or more years of military service? Do you want to bring federal civilian and military retirement to the same level?

BTW, most retied service members, besides officers, normally live their careers with a salary at or near the poverty level, with families qualifying for food stamps and WIC. Meanwhile, the average pay for federal employees is currently around $70,0000.