Food Stamp Recipients Outnumber Populations of 24 States Combined

Really? Where did you hear that garbage?
The notion of a "living wage" is a myth. A myth forwarded by union supporters and the lazy slackers who think that because they "put it time" deserve to be paid high wages.
It is not surprising a whiny person such as yourself buys into this garbage.
We each are responsible for improving our situation. If one's wages are not adequate for the type of lifestyle one wishes to have, you do what you must to improve that situation on your own. We ALL have choices.
Improvise overcome adapt.
" Ican't afford to my house payments/rent on the wages my mean rotten boss pays me."...That doesn't cut any ice.
The answer is. Don't buy what one cannot afford. If the rent it more than one can afford, move to where the rent is affordable. OR......WOW!! Improve one's skill set , go to school, etc so one CAN afford their desired lifestyle.

So, what world is it you live in again? You sure as heck don't live in this one, where hundreds of thousands of college graduates aren't getting jobs....
The real world. A college degree is not a "skill". It is not training. It is not a clear path to success. A degree will open more doors, result in higher starting wages, result in higher earning potential( the last three tied ot the performance of the individual) but it offers NO guarantees. There are no guarantees. Nor should their be.
America May Have Too Many College Graduates - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic

They are not getting hired for a number of reasons.
1. No marketable skills
2. Degree in field with little or no demand
3. Expectation of initial salary and/or benefits too ambitious
4 unwillingness to start at a low(er) paying position even if rapid growth can be achieved in an accelerated fashion.
5 lack of or poor writing or communication skills.
6 poorly or unprofessional dress for interviews.
7 has parent(s) accompany them to interview
8 parent calls HR or hiring manager to lobby for child's hire.
9. 1,000,000 new college grads enter job market each year. most with few skills or no experience. No research into the position for which they have applied.
10. inadequate or overstuffed resume.
If a college grad can master this list, he or she will have a much easier time finding choice work.
To be quite honest if I were hiring for say a logistics manager for a trucking company and I needed a person with experience, is reliable, is willing to learn new techniques, is more likely to stay with me for a long period of time, will be less likely to call in sick on Monday, I would hire a guy who's been in the business, has a stable work history and is a bit older, before I'd even consider a college grad with less than stellar qualifications. Even though I know for a fact the younger person with the degree is more computer savvy and have some research skills the other guy has. But I can count on the other less educated person to go on his own and learn the requirements of the position. He gets the job over the younger college grad because I know I will have to look at a person who will not do anything unless he is told what to do.
The degree gives that person a leg up. It gets them the interview. The degree does not necessarily get them the job. I'm not impressed by style. I want substance.

You say there are no guarantees and that's a fair enough statement but then turn around and say that if a person is not making enough he/she isn't working hard enough and that they should do all of these things if they want to move up, well if there are no guarantees as you put it even if you get a college degree and training how can you blame others for their own condition?
 
The 1% owns a combined worth more than the entire value of 24 states COMBINED!

But about that situation, you are, I assume, :doubt:sanguine?
 
So, what world is it you live in again? You sure as heck don't live in this one, where hundreds of thousands of college graduates aren't getting jobs....
The real world. A college degree is not a "skill". It is not training. It is not a clear path to success. A degree will open more doors, result in higher starting wages, result in higher earning potential( the last three tied ot the performance of the individual) but it offers NO guarantees. There are no guarantees. Nor should their be.
America May Have Too Many College Graduates - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic

They are not getting hired for a number of reasons.
1. No marketable skills
2. Degree in field with little or no demand
3. Expectation of initial salary and/or benefits too ambitious
4 unwillingness to start at a low(er) paying position even if rapid growth can be achieved in an accelerated fashion.
5 lack of or poor writing or communication skills.
6 poorly or unprofessional dress for interviews.
7 has parent(s) accompany them to interview
8 parent calls HR or hiring manager to lobby for child's hire.
9. 1,000,000 new college grads enter job market each year. most with few skills or no experience. No research into the position for which they have applied.
10. inadequate or overstuffed resume.
If a college grad can master this list, he or she will have a much easier time finding choice work.
To be quite honest if I were hiring for say a logistics manager for a trucking company and I needed a person with experience, is reliable, is willing to learn new techniques, is more likely to stay with me for a long period of time, will be less likely to call in sick on Monday, I would hire a guy who's been in the business, has a stable work history and is a bit older, before I'd even consider a college grad with less than stellar qualifications. Even though I know for a fact the younger person with the degree is more computer savvy and have some research skills the other guy has. But I can count on the other less educated person to go on his own and learn the requirements of the position. He gets the job over the younger college grad because I know I will have to look at a person who will not do anything unless he is told what to do.
The degree gives that person a leg up. It gets them the interview. The degree does not necessarily get them the job. I'm not impressed by style. I want substance.

You say there are no guarantees and that's a fair enough statement but then turn around and say that if a person is not making enough he/she isn't working hard enough and that they should do all of these things if they want to move up, well if there are no guarantees as you put it even if you get a college degree and training how can you blame others for their own condition?

It's simple, he's got his and he wants to keep it and the rest of us be damned.

We on the other hand are doing okay but recognize that there are many others who aren't and in a civilized society we need to provide for those people in some way. Then there are the uber wealthy who have more wealth than the bottom 90% of us but don't want to share even though if it weren't for their workers, they wouldn't have that wealth. America's capitalism has been taken over by greed. Funny how our government will bail out the banks and no one really complains but they whine a lot about people trying to get food.
 
Sorry, but a living wage is what people used to start out at and our economy was much better than it is today. Of course the top tax rate was also 70% at the time and our corporations weren't shipping our jobs overseas, go figure.....

In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage.

You work up to more so you can support a family...the bottom should always be a living wage and when it's not, it's the taxpayer that foots the bill, further subsidizing the corporations, but you don't care about that, do you? Corporate welfare is all good with you, just as long as the working people don't get any of it.
Tell me in your own words, how does giving more of the earned income of individuals to government increase wages to unskilled workers?

You think the unskilled workers don't earn a living????? You think the CEO of hostess earned his 300% increase?

Ya know, when you answer a question with a question it usually means you don't have an answer to the original question. So just say "I don't know".
I will ask one more time.....How do you connect increases in taxes to the wages of workers?
 
Sorry, but a living wage is what people used to start out at and our economy was much better than it is today. Of course the top tax rate was also 70% at the time and our corporations weren't shipping our jobs overseas, go figure.....

In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage.

You work up to more so you can support a family...the bottom should always be a living wage and when it's not, it's the taxpayer that foots the bill, further subsidizing the corporations, but you don't care about that, do you? Corporate welfare is all good with you, just as long as the working people don't get any of it.
Tell me in your own words, how does giving more of the earned income of individuals to government increase wages to unskilled workers?

You think the unskilled workers don't earn a living????? You think the CEO of hostess earned his 300% increase?

No. As with any worker, they earn their compensation as agreed to with the employer.
Where is the problem?
 
Tell me in your own words, how does giving more of the earned income of individuals to government increase wages to unskilled workers?

You think the unskilled workers don't earn a living????? You think the CEO of hostess earned his 300% increase?

Ya know, when you answer a question with a question it usually means you don't have an answer to the original question. So just say "I don't know".
I will ask one more time.....How do you connect increases in taxes to the wages of workers?

Refer to post 99 where I answered all your questions as best I could.
 
8751_452476614788023_621993647_n.jpg
 
Sorry, but a living wage is what people used to start out at and our economy was much better than it is today. Of course the top tax rate was also 70% at the time and our corporations weren't shipping our jobs overseas, go figure.....

In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage.

You work up to more so you can support a family...the bottom should always be a living wage and when it's not, it's the taxpayer that foots the bill, further subsidizing the corporations, but you don't care about that, do you? Corporate welfare is all good with you, just as long as the working people don't get any of it.

Let me try to piece this together because it is very confusing.

"a living wage is what people used to start out at".
Define a living wage. Then place a number of what you deem to be "living".
"our top tax rate was 70%".
How does this correlate to wages in general? Does the government have a secret fund from which they supply working people with additional funds? And I am not referring to public assistance.
Back to the top tax rate reference....In what way do tax rates on individuals affect the business climate in that higher taxes kept business from going overseas?
Can you speak to the fact that while US Based businesses are relocating some work outside the US while foreign owned firms continue to build facilities here and employ people HERE.
" it's the taxpayer that foots the bill, further subsidizing the corporations,"...OK how is the leap made from wage levels to corporate subsidies?. Is it your belief that when companies pay lower wages than those that make you comfortable, government steps in and creates or increases these alleged subsidies?...
Look, I am not arguing with you. Just trying to follow your logic.
Just answer the questions to the best of your ability. Your answers are your answers.

I've defined a living wage many times. It's enough for one person to afford a cheap apartment, food, utilities, transportation and medical care. I can't put a price on it, I'm not that current on rents and utilities.

The top tax rate correlates to wages only in that the government made more money from the richest Americans, taking away some of the tax burden that is now on the middle class.

I was pointing out the when the mw had the highest spending power in history our top tax rate was twice what it is today so that obviously, reducing taxes has not trickled down or increased wages in anyway because today's mw has the lowest spending power in history.

It wasn't the higher taxes that kept business from going overseas, it was our corporate laws, which changed in the 70's which allowed our corporations to ship our jobs overseas.

The reason our business left is because our government has given them money to leave. Yes, our government has rewarded corporations for moving our jobs overseas. They've also rewarded foreign businesses to bring jobs here, thought not to the same extent. Personally I think the people running our government are idiots. I don't know if this law is still in effect but for awhile there, our government was allowing immigrants to come here from Russia, giving them low interest loans not available to our own citizens to purchase business and allowing them to run those businesses for 5 years without paying any taxes (another perk not given to our own citizens) at the end of the 5 years, the Russian immigrant would bring a relative over and sell the business to him and and he would get the low interest loan and the 5 years tax free. Yep, they're idiots, or worse, they are purposely destroying our country.


When businesses do not pay a living wage to their employees, they end up collecting foodstamps, and other welfare programs to subsidize their wages, in effect, the taxpayer is subsidizing the businesses this way because without their employees, they wouldn't BE in business.

Of course you think that without the business the people wouldn't have work, but the truth is, we are both right. Think about it.

This is just rich...."The top tax rate correlates to wages only in that the government made more money from the richest Americans, taking away some of the tax burden that is now on the middle class. "...
Yer kidding right?
Raising taxes on one group naturally lowers taxes on another?
 
Let me try to piece this together because it is very confusing.

"a living wage is what people used to start out at".
Define a living wage. Then place a number of what you deem to be "living".
"our top tax rate was 70%".
How does this correlate to wages in general? Does the government have a secret fund from which they supply working people with additional funds? And I am not referring to public assistance.
Back to the top tax rate reference....In what way do tax rates on individuals affect the business climate in that higher taxes kept business from going overseas?
Can you speak to the fact that while US Based businesses are relocating some work outside the US while foreign owned firms continue to build facilities here and employ people HERE.
" it's the taxpayer that foots the bill, further subsidizing the corporations,"...OK how is the leap made from wage levels to corporate subsidies?. Is it your belief that when companies pay lower wages than those that make you comfortable, government steps in and creates or increases these alleged subsidies?...
Look, I am not arguing with you. Just trying to follow your logic.
Just answer the questions to the best of your ability. Your answers are your answers.

I've defined a living wage many times. It's enough for one person to afford a cheap apartment, food, utilities, transportation and medical care. I can't put a price on it, I'm not that current on rents and utilities.

The top tax rate correlates to wages only in that the government made more money from the richest Americans, taking away some of the tax burden that is now on the middle class.

I was pointing out the when the mw had the highest spending power in history our top tax rate was twice what it is today so that obviously, reducing taxes has not trickled down or increased wages in anyway because today's mw has the lowest spending power in history.

It wasn't the higher taxes that kept business from going overseas, it was our corporate laws, which changed in the 70's which allowed our corporations to ship our jobs overseas.

The reason our business left is because our government has given them money to leave. Yes, our government has rewarded corporations for moving our jobs overseas. They've also rewarded foreign businesses to bring jobs here, thought not to the same extent. Personally I think the people running our government are idiots. I don't know if this law is still in effect but for awhile there, our government was allowing immigrants to come here from Russia, giving them low interest loans not available to our own citizens to purchase business and allowing them to run those businesses for 5 years without paying any taxes (another perk not given to our own citizens) at the end of the 5 years, the Russian immigrant would bring a relative over and sell the business to him and and he would get the low interest loan and the 5 years tax free. Yep, they're idiots, or worse, they are purposely destroying our country.


When businesses do not pay a living wage to their employees, they end up collecting foodstamps, and other welfare programs to subsidize their wages, in effect, the taxpayer is subsidizing the businesses this way because without their employees, they wouldn't BE in business.

Of course you think that without the business the people wouldn't have work, but the truth is, we are both right. Think about it.

This is just rich...."The top tax rate correlates to wages only in that the government made more money from the richest Americans, taking away some of the tax burden that is now on the middle class. "...
Yer kidding right?
Raising taxes on one group naturally lowers taxes on another?

When the rich had a bigger tax burden, the middle class had a lower tax burden. All the trickle down since Reagan has only made for a huge deficit and more taxes on the middle class, while the uber rich, whose wealth has increased 200 fold in that time have paid less taxes than even the middle class percentage wise. Refer to my previous post.
 
Last edited:
It's simple, he's got his and he wants to keep it and the rest of us be damned.

Then there are the uber wealthy who have more wealth than the bottom 90% of us but don't want to share ...




And I assume you give a very generous portion of your take-home pay to everyone at your place of work who makes less than you?
 
Can anyone here remember when the minimum wage was $0.75/hour? How about just working for tips without a base wage?
 
Exclusive: Food Stamp Recipients Outnumber Populations of 24 States Combined​


by Wynton Hall
23 Nov 2012

An analysis by Breitbart News has found that the number of individuals on food stamps now exceeds the combined populations of 24 states and the District of Columbia.

In November, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that a record 47,102,780 individuals receive food stamps.

According to US. Census Bureau data, that figure exceeds the combined populations of: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Since January 2009, the number of individuals on food stamps has skyrocketed from 31.9 million to the current record high 47.1 million. By comparison, in 1969 just 2.8 million Americans received food stamps.

Last year, the food stamp program (officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP) cost taxpayers $72 billion, more than double the $30 billion spent four years ago.


[excerpt]

Read more:
Exclusive: Food Stamp Recipients Outnumber Populations of 24 States Combined

That's a lot of people. What nobody talks about when it comes to that number, is the fact that many of these people receiving food stamps will never be able to work for whatever reason. Yes, the number has gone up, as has those living in poverty, due to the poor economy. But that number includes a lot of children of single mothers who don't work. This is not 47 million people who could be out there working and making enough to feed themselves. It is around 22 million households, many single parents raising multiple kids.
 
It's simple, he's got his and he wants to keep it and the rest of us be damned.

Then there are the uber wealthy who have more wealth than the bottom 90% of us but don't want to share ...




And I assume you give a very generous portion of your take-home pay to everyone at your place of work who makes less than you?

If I made 200 to 500 times what they do, I would, yes. Especially for those on the lower rungs that need the money.

I've already shared my home for many years with those less fortunate. One boy who's mom was on welfare and cared very little about him practically lived with us through his elementary and junior high years until his mom moved. She took him with her only because she didn't want to give up the money she got for him. Then one of my oldest son's friend lived with us for 3 years, he's special needs and unemployed. Then I took in a young man for 6 months. When he didn't give a concerted effort on finding a job, I had to kick him out. I made it clear I didn't care if he found one, as long as he was looking and working towards getting one. He spent all his time playing video games instead. I also knew he had a place to go when I kicked him out so I didn't feel so bad. Another disabled homeless man lived with us for more than 2 years. We gave him enough money to put a down payment on the land he wanted to buy and the payments were low enough that he could cover them with his disability. Of course being special needs, he couldn't handle the deal and is now living in a camper on another friend's property. We tried, that's all we can do.

I give up many hours of my time to help the less fortunate. And I will bet that our income is far less than yours. In Dec, I will be spending 6 days a week volunteering. How much of your time have you spent volunteering? How much of your money have you given to the less fortunate? Then stop trying to tell me how I'm greedy and don't share and I want others to give more than I do.

How can you think that a minimum wage worker doesn't deserve a roof over his head, food in his belly, transportation to and from work, utilities and healthcare when his bosses are making 200 to 500 times the amount of money he makes?

Every working person deserves that much and every disabled person as well.

As for why I have all this time on my hands? With two special needs kids, I had to be a stay at home mom for far longer than I planned. When I finally got to where I could get a job and found a job I loved and managed to work a different shift from my husband so we could deal with it and our kids, it was sent to India. I haven't been able to find a job since and I don't believe in sitting around doing nothing. So, not having the money, I give of myself. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a saint, I get a lot out of the time I donate. I enjoy talking to the people who come in for the free lunches at the church. I enjoy being with my sisters in our non academic cancer sorority where almost 100% of the money we raise goes to the doctors doing the research to find a cure for cancer. We pay dues to cover our overhead. I do a lot of volunteering for the local theatre and as a result I get to see the plays for free. My friend does it with me and we have a lot of fun. Free fun with a reward of a free play. Not bad. I do however wish the theatre director hadn't decided to do 2 plays in December. We have to find 90 volunteers a week, that's just not easy, especially during the holidays. Feel free to volunteer.
 
Exclusive: Food Stamp Recipients Outnumber Populations of 24 States Combined​


by Wynton Hall
23 Nov 2012

An analysis by Breitbart News has found that the number of individuals on food stamps now exceeds the combined populations of 24 states and the District of Columbia.

In November, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that a record 47,102,780 individuals receive food stamps.

According to US. Census Bureau data, that figure exceeds the combined populations of: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Since January 2009, the number of individuals on food stamps has skyrocketed from 31.9 million to the current record high 47.1 million. By comparison, in 1969 just 2.8 million Americans received food stamps.

Last year, the food stamp program (officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP) cost taxpayers $72 billion, more than double the $30 billion spent four years ago.


[excerpt]

Read more:
Exclusive: Food Stamp Recipients Outnumber Populations of 24 States Combined

That's a lot of people. What nobody talks about when it comes to that number, is the fact that many of these people receiving food stamps will never be able to work for whatever reason. Yes, the number has gone up, as has those living in poverty, due to the poor economy. But that number includes a lot of children of single mothers who don't work. This is not 47 million people who could be out there working and making enough to feed themselves. It is around 22 million households, many single parents raising multiple kids.

It is absolutely a reflection of the fact that our economy is in the toilet and what few jobs we do have don't pay enough. A lot of those collecting food stamps are the working poor. I wonder how many of those food stamp recipients work for Walmart?
 
It's simple, he's got his and he wants to keep it and the rest of us be damned.

Then there are the uber wealthy who have more wealth than the bottom 90% of us but don't want to share ...




And I assume you give a very generous portion of your take-home pay to everyone at your place of work who makes less than you?

If I made 200 to 500 times what they do, I would, yes. Especially for those on the lower rungs that need the money.

I've already shared my home for many years with those less fortunate. One boy who's mom was on welfare and cared very little about him practically lived with us through his elementary and junior high years until his mom moved. She took him with her only because she didn't want to give up the money she got for him. Then one of my oldest son's friend lived with us for 3 years, he's special needs and unemployed. Then I took in a young man for 6 months. When he didn't give a concerted effort on finding a job, I had to kick him out. I made it clear I didn't care if he found one, as long as he was looking and working towards getting one. He spent all his time playing video games instead. I also knew he had a place to go when I kicked him out so I didn't feel so bad. Another disabled homeless man lived with us for more than 2 years. We gave him enough money to put a down payment on the land he wanted to buy and the payments were low enough that he could cover them with his disability. Of course being special needs, he couldn't handle the deal and is now living in a camper on another friend's property. We tried, that's all we can do.

I give up many hours of my time to help the less fortunate. And I will bet that our income is far less than yours. In Dec, I will be spending 6 days a week volunteering. How much of your time have you spent volunteering? How much of your money have you given to the less fortunate? Then stop trying to tell me how I'm greedy and don't share and I want others to give more than I do.

How can you think that a minimum wage worker doesn't deserve a roof over his head, food in his belly, transportation to and from work, utilities and healthcare when his bosses are making 200 to 500 times the amount of money he makes?

Every working person deserves that much and every disabled person as well.

As for why I have all this time on my hands? With two special needs kids, I had to be a stay at home mom for far longer than I planned. When I finally got to where I could get a job and found a job I loved and managed to work a different shift from my husband so we could deal with it and our kids, it was sent to India. I haven't been able to find a job since and I don't believe in sitting around doing nothing. So, not having the money, I give of myself. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a saint, I get a lot out of the time I donate. I enjoy talking to the people who come in for the free lunches at the church. I enjoy being with my sisters in our non academic cancer sorority where almost 100% of the money we raise goes to the doctors doing the research to find a cure for cancer. We pay dues to cover our overhead. I do a lot of volunteering for the local theatre and as a result I get to see the plays for free. My friend does it with me and we have a lot of fun. Free fun with a reward of a free play. Not bad. I do however wish the theatre director hadn't decided to do 2 plays in December. We have to find 90 volunteers a week, that's just not easy, especially during the holidays. Feel free to volunteer.

The problem is fucktards who call the less fortunate, lazy and freeloaders don't know the individual situations of people who receive government assistance, they put everyone in one big box.
 
It's simple, he's got his and he wants to keep it and the rest of us be damned.

Then there are the uber wealthy who have more wealth than the bottom 90% of us but don't want to share ...




And I assume you give a very generous portion of your take-home pay to everyone at your place of work who makes less than you?

If I made 200 to 500 times what they do, I would, yes. ..



Which is to say you don't?
 
Can anyone here remember when the minimum wage was $0.75/hour? How about just working for tips without a base wage?

When I got my first job, the minimum wage was 50 cents an hour. The minimum wage is on its way out. It can't be sustained. Probably the minimum wage will be replaced by something on the order of what Europe and Australia has.
 
Tell me in your own words, how does giving more of the earned income of individuals to government increase wages to unskilled workers?

You think the unskilled workers don't earn a living????? You think the CEO of hostess earned his 300% increase?

No. As with any worker, they earn their compensation as agreed to with the employer.
Where is the problem?

The problem is that Hostess raided the AGREED TO pensions of their workers and gave their CEOs and top execs HUGE pay raises. You don't have a problem with that?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top