Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-08-2012, 07:08 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,519,997 times
Reputation: 27720

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
There's nothing wrong with letting people know about the programs designed to help ensure KIDS and FAMILIES have enough to eat. What kind of evil are you, anyway? Guess people should get inadequate nutrition because of your sick ideology!
But why did the USG partner with Mexico to advertise ?
One does not need to prove citizenship to apply. Not all states participate in SAVE.
Participants have more than doubled since 2008.

The surge in welfare entitlement programs over the past 3-4 years should worry people.
Our taxes have not gone up but participation in these programs have increased anywhere from 100-500%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2012, 07:56 AM
 
17,291 posts, read 29,415,445 times
Reputation: 8691
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
But why did the USG partner with Mexico to advertise ?
One does not need to prove citizenship to apply. Not all states participate in SAVE.
Participants have more than doubled since 2008.

The surge in welfare entitlement programs over the past 3-4 years should worry people.
Our taxes have not gone up but participation in these programs have increased anywhere from 100-500%.


Think of it as yet another form of corporate - yes, corporate - welfare. Foodstamps, WIC is just a consumer based subsidy of the ag and big food businesses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 08:09 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,519,997 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
Think of it as yet another form of corporate - yes, corporate - welfare. Foodstamps, WIC is just a consumer based subsidy of the ag and big food businesses.
And since they all went electronic JPMorgan is making out quite well.
JPM has a complete division just to deal with these entitlement programs and get a cut for every transaction.

JPM made $5.47 billion just from the food stamp program in 2010 (SEC report)

Food Stamps: JPMorgan & Banking Industry Profit From Misery | Roosevelt Institute


And you think the Dems are going to punish those big banks ? HAH..they have given those big banks all their business.

The USG goes electronic and the banksters get the business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 08:11 AM
 
Location: Massachusetts
10,029 posts, read 8,350,388 times
Reputation: 4212
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
So what?
Why do you get benefits others don't get?
What makes you special?
You don't think that hets don't scam the system?

So the entire basis of your thought process is greed.
How about we just get rid of survivor or spousal benefits.
Why do people get free health insurance through medicaide when i have to pay for mine? What makes them so special? Why do they get benefits that I don't?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 08:55 AM
 
1,148 posts, read 1,683,711 times
Reputation: 1327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin View Post
That's correct since it was a 100% Bi-Partisan effort put together by both parties. And we know it's not a Tax but will save us Trillions of $$

All this warm fuzzy talk from Obama the last 2 days about "Working Together". Where was that the last 4 years ?
The only thing bipartisan about Obamacare was the people who voted against it. Last time I checked, all republicans and like 12 democrats voted against it.

OPs comment about Obamacare not being an entitlement...HA!!! It is like one of the largest entitlements ever.

50,000,000 people are on food stamps now. 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. Unraveling 1996 welfare reform. Does that answer your question OP?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 09:24 AM
 
59,113 posts, read 27,340,319 times
Reputation: 14289
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic View Post
What exactly has Obama or any Democrat done in the last four years to expand entitlements? Can you name a single thing? Please enlighten me how Obama is the "food stamp president" when he didn't invent and didn't touch the SNAP program, for instance.

I refuse to count Obamacare because there was already Medicaid for the poor.
Did you send this from your FREE cell phone?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 10:11 AM
 
29,407 posts, read 22,017,439 times
Reputation: 5455
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
And since they all went electronic JPMorgan is making out quite well.
JPM has a complete division just to deal with these entitlement programs and get a cut for every transaction.

JPM made $5.47 billion just from the food stamp program in 2010 (SEC report)

Food Stamps: JPMorgan & Banking Industry Profit From Misery | Roosevelt Institute


And you think the Dems are going to punish those big banks ? HAH..they have given those big banks all their business.

The USG goes electronic and the banksters get the business.
Wow didn't know it was that much. That's a nice chunk of change for doing nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
7,835 posts, read 8,443,092 times
Reputation: 8564
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
From a previous post of mine:

Why can't anyone see what Obama did?

They are cutting the people they deliberately increased on food stamps in time for the 2012 election. This is from a 2011 post of mine.

Obama is The Food Stamp President not just that a poor economy is causing it. This comes from Tom Vilsack, the Secretary of Agriculture, in his own words on Morning Joe back in August 2011.

"U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack backed a White House claim that food stamps, which the Department of Agriculture administers, actually constitute a stimulus program, describing it as 'the most direct stimulus you can get into the economy during these tough times.' 'The reason the number of recipients has increased is that the federal government has been working more closely with local governments to get more Americans on food stamps,' Vilsack said."

Ag Secretary Vilsack: Food Stamps Stimulate Jobs

What Vilsack and the Obama administration is really doing is making more people dependent on the federal dole to stimulate Democrat voting.


"According to CBO, in the years ahead the share of the population that participates in SNAP will fall back to 2008 levels."

House Agriculture Committee Farm Bill Would Throw 2 to 3 Million People Off of SNAP — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

So to sum it up, put a whole bunch of additional people on food stamp rolls so they vote Democrat to keep their freebies, then cut the same number of people off the food stamp rolls to make it look like you are cutting spending and that it happens AFTER Election Day. Once you are in for your second term, you don't care.

And the news media just rolls over and plays dead.
That's an extroardinarily cynical interpretation of facts.

What you're missing is causation.

There are several reasons families may need to supplement their food spending with assistance; they're elderly and on a fixed income, they have disabilities and are unable to work, they're the working poor, they're unemployed:

1. The unemployed.
"Since the start of the recession in December 2007, an estimated 8.1 million jobs have been lost. This includes both the 7.24 million jobs lost in the payroll data as currently published and the preliminary annual benchmark revision(released October 2 , 2009), which showed an additional 824,000 jobs lost from April 2008 to March 2009. This number understates the magnitude of the hole in the labor market by failing to take into account the fact that the labor market should have added jobs since December 2007 simply to keep up with population growth. This means the labor market is currently 10.6 million jobs below what would restore the pre-recession unemployment rate."
2. The working poor.
"Many SNAP recipients are currently employed but they still need some assistance so that they can put nutritious food on the table for their families. More than 29 percent of SNAP households had earnings in 2009, and 40 percent of all SNAP participants lived in a household with earnings. For these households, earnings were the primary source of income." ... "The primary source of income among SNAP participants shifted from welfare to work. In 1989, 42 percent of all SNAP households received cash welfare benefits and only 20 percent had earnings. In 2009, less than 10 percent received cash welfare, while 29 percent had earnings."
3. The elderly and disabled.
"A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work."
I'm fairly certain you would not want people in these categories to go without basic food sustenance. I'm also fairly certain that you want a government that is actually efficient in working for the people whose tax dollars it's administering.

So in order to accomplish both of those goals: ensuring people who need food actually get food, and doing so efficiently and effectively, it should make sense to you that the Department of Agriculture should be working closely with the states to get those additional 10.6 million people who lost their jobs during the Great Recession the food they need to survive.

And as we pull ourselves out of the Great Recession and people get back to work, it's just a basic reality that "in the years ahead the share of the population that participates in SNAP will fall back to 2008 levels."
"SNAP caseloads have increased significantly since late 2007, as the recession and lagging recovery battered the economic circumstances of millions of Americans and dramatically increased the number of low-income households who qualify and apply for help from the program. In addition, the 2009 Recovery Act increased SNAP benefits as a way of delivering economic stimulus. Policymakers deemed SNAP to be effective for this purpose because of its broad reach among low-income populations and its high efficiency. According to the National Academy of Science measures of poverty, which count SNAP as income, SNAP kept about 4 million people out of poverty in 2010 and lessened the severity of poverty for millions of others. The recent growth in SNAP spending is temporary. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that SNAP spending will fall as a share of GDP in coming years as the economy recovers and the Recovery Act provisions end."
Where you make your mistake is connecting these basic principles and facts with a political intent.

The president and Democrats want fewer people on benefits just like you do. That's why we're fighting for things like thriving wages for workers and raising the minimum wage. We think it's incumbent upon businesses to pay their employees a salary that would allow them to pay their own rent or mortgage, buy sufficient food for their families, clothe their kids, have decent reliable transportation, get health care, and even be able to save a little for a rainy day. When major corporations have as many as 80 percent of their workers using SNAP benefits, that's akin to them foisting their payroll responsibilities off onto taxpayers. Why should you and I have to supplement their workers' incomes with Food Stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, etc.? Businesses that do that should have their licenses to do business in the United States revoked until they get their pay policies in line with current day cost of living, or, in the alternative, incur fines at double or triple or more of what they burden you and I with having to pay their workers.

I'm going to ask you to do two things: stop relying on partisan sources that have an agenda to get you to buy into their interpretation of facts and start challenging them by looking for non-partisan sites like those I've linked to above; and contact your Representatives in Congress and ask them to start addressing the very serious problem of corporations using taxpayers to supplement their payroll departments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 10:56 AM
 
17,291 posts, read 29,415,445 times
Reputation: 8691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
Did you send this from your FREE cell phone?
The free cell phone program was not started by Obama, but nice try.

Though the origins of the universal service program date back at least to 1934, the Lifeline program in particular was instituted by a well-known redistributionist by the name of President Ronald Reagan in 1984. A related effort, expanding affordable access to cell phones for low-income Americans, was created by another radical liberal by the name of George W. Bush.

As for the larger context, Dave Weigel's point bears repeating: "Shockingly, despite the bipartisan origins of the service, the idea of an 'Obama Phone' for the undeserving has existed for a long time. You know what else has existed for a long time? The Drudge Report hyping up tabloid news that makes black people look like violent dopes who'll do anything for more goodies from Obama."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 10:59 AM
 
17,291 posts, read 29,415,445 times
Reputation: 8691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Roma View Post
Why do people get free health insurance through medicaide when i have to pay for mine? What makes them so special? Why do they get benefits that I don't?
Start thinking seriously about universal, single payer healthcare a la Canada and then you too can have the same as everyone else.


Until then, don't be sad you don't qualify for Medicaid. It means you're not poor. Become poor, and then you too can have glorious Medicaid benefits.


Americans need to understand the interconnectedness of health of its people in terms of both costs for everyone else AND national security. Having 30 million uninsured who use emergency rooms like primary care offices makes everyone's costs rise. People not accessing doctors early but waiting until problems fester and become unavoidable makes costs soar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top