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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2014, 08:20 AM
 
Location: DFW
40,931 posts, read 48,971,778 times
Reputation: 54926

Advertisements

Obamacare and other programs are pushing our deficit sky high. Something has to be cut somewhere.

It ain't all free.

 
Old 01-10-2014, 08:23 AM
 
750 posts, read 1,432,223 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
The story illustrates well why food stamps and government funded health care should be eliminated.
Yeah, Frank. Let 'em die!

Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" in action!

Let "those" people (the poor) just curl up and die. Especially the babies and little kids who couldn't work if they wanted to.

Such a fine, religious, charitable way to live.

Commendable, really.
 
Old 01-10-2014, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,260,642 times
Reputation: 27718
From the OP link:

Seligman couldn't prove that running low on food was to blame
 
Old 01-10-2014, 08:25 AM
 
Location: DFW
40,931 posts, read 48,971,778 times
Reputation: 54926
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsqueezer View Post
Yeah, Frank. Let 'em die!

Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" in action!

Let "those" people (the poor) just curl up and die. Especially the babies and little kids who couldn't work if they wanted to.

Such a fine, religious, charitable way to live.

Commendable, really.
I'd bet you weigh these so called poor folk you'd find a serious overweight problem among many.

Many time their problem is eating too much of the wrong foods.
 
Old 01-10-2014, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,260,642 times
Reputation: 27718
Put SNAP eligibility back to FPL rather than 133% FPL.

If poverty now reaches 133% of FPL then change FPL.
The recession is over and has been for 5 years now.
Jobs are plentiful..just look at UE.

Time to take away all the "temporary benefits" that are no longer needed.
No one is dying of starvation in the streets.
We have an obesity problem with the poor, not a starvation problem.
 
Old 01-10-2014, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,096 posts, read 10,651,841 times
Reputation: 9731
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsqueezer View Post
Yeah, Frank. Let 'em die!

Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" in action!

Let "those" people (the poor) just curl up and die. Especially the babies and little kids who couldn't work if they wanted to.

Such a fine, religious, charitable way to live.

Commendable, really.
Good job on arguing with emotion rather than any logic, facts, or reality.
 
Old 01-10-2014, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,550,875 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Put SNAP eligibility back to FPL rather than 133% FPL.

If poverty now reaches 133% of FPL then change FPL.
The recession is over and has been for 5 years now.
Jobs are plentiful..just look at UE.

Time to take away all the "temporary benefits" that are no longer needed.
No one is dying of starvation in the streets.
We have an obesity problem with the poor, not a starvation problem.
It is my understanding that states have the option to increase the FPL multiplier. 12 states, red and blue, went to 200%. Some, such as Texas, went to 165%. Interestingly, Cali and NY have maintained SNAP at 130%. There are now substantially more people with incomes > FPL on SNAP than people living at or beneath FPL.

Between 2000-2010 the number of beneficiaries doubled. The increase was steady and included 2003-7, when the economy was perceived as relatively robust.

The entire issue of FPL warrants a redefinition and needs to include the value of other social welfare programs. If states want to do their own thing and continue to define eligibility at rates above true FPL they should pay for it.
 
Old 01-10-2014, 09:18 AM
 
1,637 posts, read 1,876,039 times
Reputation: 1240
People are so dramatic in this country. I am well off and fast 4 days a month. Additionally, I eat vegetarian bean based dinners most of the time. I spend for myself, about 100 bucks a month on food. My food costs are less than most people on govt assistance. The whiny, first world problems in this country really get old.
 
Old 01-10-2014, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,260,642 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
It is my understanding that states have the option to increase the FPL multiplier. 12 states, red and blue, went to 200%. Some, such as Texas, went to 165%. Interestingly, Cali and NY have maintained SNAP at 130%. There are now substantially more people with incomes > FPL on SNAP than people living at or beneath FPL.

Between 2000-2010 the number of beneficiaries doubled. The increase was steady and included 2003-7, when the economy was perceived as relatively robust.

The entire issue of FPL warrants a redefinition and needs to include the value of other social welfare programs. If states want to do their own thing and continue to define eligibility at rates above true FPL they should pay for it.
Reality is that we are a country in decline and the numbers hide that fact.
FPL will stay where it is because that's what the public sees and reads.
But when you go hunting on the various .gov websites you see that few, if any programs are at FPL anymore.
Most are over and some are way over.

200% of FPL is $23K for a single person and near $50K for a family of four.

$50K for a family is now considered poor...
 
Old 01-10-2014, 09:25 AM
 
13,817 posts, read 5,538,666 times
Reputation: 8507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin View Post
I'd bet you weigh these so called poor folk you'd find a serious overweight problem among many.

Many time their problem is eating too much of the wrong foods.
The lowest income quintile has a higher percentage of obesity, smoking, alcoholism and drug abuse than the other 4 income quintiles. Proven statistical fact that repeats year after year.

Know what obesity, smoking, alcoholism and drug abuse all have in common? Poor individual choices that are repeated and become poor lifestyle. Hey wait, aren't poor choices that are repeated and become a lifestyle also the primary cause of being stuck in the lowest income quintile? Why...it's....it's as if the problem isn't the availability of free food that endangers these people, but their own poor choices.

Alex, I'll take "Why All The Money In The World Won't Help These People" for $400 please.
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.


Closed Thread


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