Proven Right Yet Again!

[PoliticalChic]

I knew the first people targeted would be the elderly.

It is, in fact, a critical requirement of ObamaCare.

1. Democrat Tom Daschle, original nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department, and says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey - Bloomberg

2. Dr. David Blumenthal, a Harvard professor and key health advisor to President Obama, conceded that "government controls on health care spending are associated with longer waits for elective procedures and reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices." Could this mean angioplasty, bypass surgery, hip replacement, and knee replacement? Who could this be aimed at? How about ‘longer waits’ for cancer patients? Mammograms and MRI’s? Defend Your Healthcare

3. Slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age.” The CER would identify (this is language from the draft report on the legislation) medical "items, procedures, and interventions" that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They "will no longer be prescribed" by federal health programs.” Are you thinking ‘seniors’? George F. Will - How the GOP Should Measure the Stimulus


4. "Beyond Obamacare...WE need death panels.
...unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.
...in the pantheon of toxic issues — the famous “third rails” of American politics — none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.
In 2009, Sarah Palin’s rant about death panels even forced elimination from the bill of a provision to offer end-of-life consultations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/o...form-beyond-obamacare.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know, I always hear howls of protest and indignation from the 'nuts around here when I point out that all conservative economic policy is designed to increase the gap between rich and poor in this country.

But based on the OP's position, and the many here who agree with her,

who can prove I'm wrong?

What's wrong with people getting rich?

Because when you whine about the gulf between the poor and the rich, that's what you're whining about. It's that rich people have too much money.

I don't resent it when people succeed. I resent it when people try to prevent or slow down individual success.

Aside from that your demand that others prove your wrong, is, per usual, ass backwards. It isn't our job to prove you wrong, it's your job to prove you're right. So far you haven't, so we don't need to do anything at all except let you sit there with your stupid statement.

Conservatives want to cut social programs that benefit low income Americans;

that will make those people poorer.

Conservatives want to flatten the tax system, which will disproportionately benefit higher income Americans;

that will make them richer.

1. Do you dispute anything in the above?

2. Do you dispute that the above, if accomplished, would widen the gap between rich and poor (or, if you prefer different terminology, between rich and poorer)?

 

[saveliberty]

Democrats just want to make middle class people look stupid in paying their way for education and the other things of life. Part of the master plan to eliminate them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes. Give me another beating and provide the source for your claim in #5?

Thanks.

Gee...that was easy.
Now, try this:
SIT-STAY-ROLL OVER!



OK...here comes your treat:

1. "Yet this year the federal
government will spend more than $668 billion on at
least 126 different programs to fight poverty.
And that does not even begin to count welfare
spending by state and local governments, which
adds $284 billion to that figure. In total, the
United States spends nearly $1 trillion every
year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per
poor family of three."
Scribd


And...


2. Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent

Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

$3.69 trillon budget proposal

1. Social Security $738 20%

2.National Defense $738

3. Income Security $567

4. Medicare $498

5.Net Interest $251

6. Health $381

7. Education $122

8. Veteran’s Benefits $122

9. Transportation $91.55

10. International Affairs $67.39
$3,575.94


Defense and international security assistance: In 2011, 20 percent of the budget, or $718 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities. The bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Department of Defense and other security-related activities. The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, funding for which totaled $159 billion in 2011. Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Social Security is 100% self -funded by the payroll tax. Medicare is about 60% self-funded by the payroll tax.

Where do you get the numbers showing that more is spent on 'the poor' or whatever we're calling them nowadays, than on the military?

 

[koshergrl]

Eligibility workers don't have to verify income if an applicant meets "expedited" criteria. If they meet that criteria, the only thing we have to verify is identification, and that can be done in many different ways.

Expedited means that someone has less than $150 anticipated, or anticipates not bringing in enough to pay rent/utilities for the month and doesn't already have an open foodstamp case in the state in which they are applying.

Typically, workers are pretty good at getting income verification though. They do get jipped sometimes by people who come in from other states and claim they have no income; but we have 7 days even for expedited before we have to make a determination, and usually w/in 7 days we can figure out if the client has benefits in another state, and locate some sort of verification of income.

People who are really dedicated to hiding income can easily do it. Workers don't look at bank statements for foodstamps, and if a person is earning $1000 cash paid under the table, and doesn't claim that, there's no way for them to catch that right away. Women tend to hide income more than men do...men tend to claim they work a lot more than they do, and try to hide the fact that they just don't work. For example, a guy who is living in a trailer on his folks' place and who has been for decades, will try to make it seem as though he's "working" for his parents in order to pay his keep. But really, they're just providing him with a place to stay and paying his bills.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You know, I always hear howls of protest and indignation from the 'nuts around here when I point out that all conservative economic policy is designed to increase the gap between rich and poor in this country.

But based on the OP's position, and the many here who agree with her,

who can prove I'm wrong?

Why should we listen to you at all. A couple of posts later you claim to not understand what the OP even says.

Her desire to widen the gap between rich and poor in this country, which is mainstream conservative policy, that part comes across loud and clear.

Do you want to dispute that? Do you want to show us how in sum total the conservative approach to economic policy does NOT widen the gap between rich and poor?

You never tire of proving what a dunce you are.

1. The elderly own stuff. The stuff already owned is not federally taxed.
In general, they are no longer earning.


2. Working American pay taxes, which are deducted from their earnings. Deducted...meaning that they can save less, or they have less to buy stuff with.
Taxation is what stands in the way of working Americans becoming rich.


3. Conservative policy is geared toward decreasing the size of government. That means, making it smaller. The corollary is lower taxation.
Refer to #2 above.

4. Liberal/progressive/Democrat policy is to increase the size of government. That mean, make it bigger.
Guess what that means as far as taxation?
Refer to #2.

a. But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html

Refer to #2.

Now, go sit back in the dumb row and mull that over.

 

[hazlnut]

1. “:…food stamp recipients -- increasing from 33 million people in 2009 to 43 million in 2012 -- as a sign that poverty had skyrocketed under President Obama. But a new study suggests that the reason there has been such an increase in food stamp recipients during the last four years is even more pernicious.

2. …George Mason University's David Armor and Sonia Sousa, argue that the food stamp program can no longer be regarded as an anti-poverty program because nearly half of its recipients are above the poverty line, many of them substantially so.

a. …other anti-poverty programs have an even higher percentage of the non-poor among their recipients.





3. The study examined spending over the last thirty years for federal anti-poverty programs providing nutrition, health care, housing and cash assistance for the supposed poor. They show that the explosion in costs for these programs has little to do with the higher numbers of Americans who have fallen into poverty since the Great Recession…

4. Spending for poverty programs received a big boost during the Bush years, a $100 billion increase over eight years. But the Obama spending spree dwarfed those increases.In his first two years in office, President Obama increased such spending by $150 billion, some of it in the 2009 stimulus package.




5. The portion of the federal budget now attributable to fighting the "war on poverty" is now roughly equal to the entire defense budget ($666 billion compared to $693 billion), slightly less than spending on Social Security ($700 billion), but more than on Medicare ($551 billion).

a. Taken together, federal spending on income transfers and other social benefits are now 2.76 times greater than spending for national defense.

6. The major changes occurred when the government allowed more lenient standards for eligibility for benefits. Most of these programs were originally designed to help those who lived below the official poverty line, which in 2011 was $11,702 for a single person and $22,811 for a family of four. But over the years, the federal government has lowered the threshold so that even those earning twice the income considered below poverty still qualify.

a. …in several states, a family of four with income of over $45,000 a year is eligible to receive benefits.

7. …over half of the recipients of food stamps (now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), have income above the poverty line.

a. Of the 40.3 million receiving food stamps in 2010 (the last year for which detailed figures are available), 20.4 were above the poverty cut-off. Of these, a whopping 8 million have income twice the poverty level.





8. …the non-poor receive more benefits than food stamps. Those living at 133-200 percent or more of the poverty level also constitute the greatest number of beneficiaries of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

a. Even Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which gives cash benefits to those supposedly in need, now supports those whose incomes are twice the official poverty definition; indeed 40 percent of TANF funds go to families whose incomes are more than 200 percent of poverty.

9. The policy implications of these findings are enormous. What once were programs to provide a safety net for the truly poor are now programs to boost the living standards of the lower middle class.

10. … these changes reflect a sea change in social and economic policy. Those who have warned that America is heading toward a welfare state are wrong. We are already there.” The American Welfare State - Linda Chavez - [page]



This from one of my previous posts:
1. Re-examine the welfare solution for poverty. The very first step is to reinstitute the real definition of “poverty.” It is “no home-no heat- no food.” That’s poverty.

2. The Progressives have corrupted the meaning for several reasons, not the least of which is to maximize the vote from recipients of various bogus programs…such as food stamps.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/265982-obama-and-the-fiscal-cliff.html



You've been lied to...and you bought it like it was on sale!

Say what, Obama voters???




“Some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them.” George Orwell

If the Federal Government and State Governments would just fund abortions, the food stamp problem would be solved.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why should we listen to you at all. A couple of posts later you claim to not understand what the OP even says.

Her desire to widen the gap between rich and poor in this country, which is mainstream conservative policy, that part comes across loud and clear.

Do you want to dispute that? Do you want to show us how in sum total the conservative approach to economic policy does NOT widen the gap between rich and poor?

First you understand, then you don't, now you do.

The only thing you proved is you're just here to be a hack.

Why don't you just tell us who she's claiming was proven right, and about what.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. “:…food stamp recipients -- increasing from 33 million people in 2009 to 43 million in 2012 -- as a sign that poverty had skyrocketed under President Obama. But a new study suggests that the reason there has been such an increase in food stamp recipients during the last four years is even more pernicious.

2. …George Mason University's David Armor and Sonia Sousa, argue that the food stamp program can no longer be regarded as an anti-poverty program because nearly half of its recipients are above the poverty line, many of them substantially so.

a. …other anti-poverty programs have an even higher percentage of the non-poor among their recipients.





3. The study examined spending over the last thirty years for federal anti-poverty programs providing nutrition, health care, housing and cash assistance for the supposed poor. They show that the explosion in costs for these programs has little to do with the higher numbers of Americans who have fallen into poverty since the Great Recession…

4. Spending for poverty programs received a big boost during the Bush years, a $100 billion increase over eight years. But the Obama spending spree dwarfed those increases.In his first two years in office, President Obama increased such spending by $150 billion, some of it in the 2009 stimulus package.




5. The portion of the federal budget now attributable to fighting the "war on poverty" is now roughly equal to the entire defense budget ($666 billion compared to $693 billion), slightly less than spending on Social Security ($700 billion), but more than on Medicare ($551 billion).

a. Taken together, federal spending on income transfers and other social benefits are now 2.76 times greater than spending for national defense.

6. The major changes occurred when the government allowed more lenient standards for eligibility for benefits. Most of these programs were originally designed to help those who lived below the official poverty line, which in 2011 was $11,702 for a single person and $22,811 for a family of four. But over the years, the federal government has lowered the threshold so that even those earning twice the income considered below poverty still qualify.

a. …in several states, a family of four with income of over $45,000 a year is eligible to receive benefits.

7. …over half of the recipients of food stamps (now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), have income above the poverty line.

a. Of the 40.3 million receiving food stamps in 2010 (the last year for which detailed figures are available), 20.4 were above the poverty cut-off. Of these, a whopping 8 million have income twice the poverty level.





8. …the non-poor receive more benefits than food stamps. Those living at 133-200 percent or more of the poverty level also constitute the greatest number of beneficiaries of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

a. Even Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which gives cash benefits to those supposedly in need, now supports those whose incomes are twice the official poverty definition; indeed 40 percent of TANF funds go to families whose incomes are more than 200 percent of poverty.

9. The policy implications of these findings are enormous. What once were programs to provide a safety net for the truly poor are now programs to boost the living standards of the lower middle class.

10. … these changes reflect a sea change in social and economic policy. Those who have warned that America is heading toward a welfare state are wrong. We are already there.” The American Welfare State - Linda Chavez - [page]



This from one of my previous posts:
1. Re-examine the welfare solution for poverty. The very first step is to reinstitute the real definition of “poverty.” It is “no home-no heat- no food.” That’s poverty.

2. The Progressives have corrupted the meaning for several reasons, not the least of which is to maximize the vote from recipients of various bogus programs…such as food stamps.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/265982-obama-and-the-fiscal-cliff.html



You've been lied to...and you bought it like it was on sale!

Say what, Obama voters???




“Some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them.” George Orwell

If the Federal Government and State Governments would just fund abortions, the food stamp problem would be solved.

As per your private request, here is the original study:

Restoring a True Safety Net > Publications > National Affairs

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why should we listen to you at all. A couple of posts later you claim to not understand what the OP even says.

Her desire to widen the gap between rich and poor in this country, which is mainstream conservative policy, that part comes across loud and clear.

Do you want to dispute that? Do you want to show us how in sum total the conservative approach to economic policy does NOT widen the gap between rich and poor?

You never tire of proving what a dunce you are.

1. The elderly own stuff. The stuff already owned is not federally taxed.
In general, they are no longer earning.


2. Working American pay taxes, which are deducted from their earnings. Deducted...meaning that they can save less, or they have less to buy stuff with.
Taxation is what stands in the way of working Americans becoming rich.


3. Conservative policy is geared toward decreasing the size of government. That means, making it smaller. The corollary is lower taxation.
Refer to #2 above.

4. Liberal/progressive/Democrat policy is to increase the size of government. That mean, make it bigger.
Guess what that means as far as taxation?
Refer to #2.

a. But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html

Refer to #2.

Now, go sit back in the dumb row and mull that over.

The issue is,

do conservatives want to widen the gap between rich and poor?

You want to cut aid to low income Americans; you want to cut taxes for the Rich. The sum total of that exercise nets out to a widening of the gap between rich and poor.

What part of that, specifically, is inaccurate?

 

[hazlnut]

You never tire of proving what a dunce you are.

Uh-oh, here comes big fat train wreck.

1. The elderly own stuff. The stuff already owned is not federally taxed.
In general, they are no longer earning.

WTF does that have to do with anything?

2. Working American pay taxes, which are deducted from their earnings. Deducted...meaning that they can save less, or they have less to buy stuff with.
Taxation is what stands in the way of working Americans becoming rich.

So, if we just give away all public resources for free, that would solve the problem?

What's in those big macs you eat like candy?

3. Conservative policy is geared toward decreasing the size of government. That means, making it smaller. The corollary is lower taxation.
Refer to #2 above.

What's the conservative policy on paying back money you borrowed?

Wishful thinking (while you stuff your fat face)?

4. Liberal/progressive/Democrat policy is to increase the size of government. That mean, make it bigger.
Guess what that means as far as taxation?
Refer to #2.

A strawman... made of big macs.

Chow down fatty.

Now, go sit back in the dumb row and mull that over.

Get back in line for seconds, you stupid fat bitch.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Eligibility workers don't have to verify income if an applicant meets "expedited" criteria. If they meet that criteria, the only thing we have to verify is identification, and that can be done in many different ways.

Expedited means that someone has less than $150 anticipated, or anticipates not bringing in enough to pay rent/utilities for the month and doesn't already have an open foodstamp case in the state in which they are applying.

Typically, workers are pretty good at getting income verification though. They do get jipped sometimes by people who come in from other states and claim they have no income; but we have 7 days even for expedited before we have to make a determination, and usually w/in 7 days we can figure out if the client has benefits in another state, and locate some sort of verification of income.

People who are really dedicated to hiding income can easily do it. Workers don't look at bank statements for foodstamps, and if a person is earning $1000 cash paid under the table, and doesn't claim that, there's no way for them to catch that right away. Women tend to hide income more than men do...men tend to claim they work a lot more than they do, and try to hide the fact that they just don't work. For example, a guy who is living in a trailer on his folks' place and who has been for decades, will try to make it seem as though he's "working" for his parents in order to pay his keep. But really, they're just providing him with a place to stay and paying his bills.

I think most people pretending to be poor hide their assets in the Cayman Islands.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You never tire of proving what a dunce you are.

Uh-oh, here comes big fat train wreck.

1. The elderly own stuff. The stuff already owned is not federally taxed.
In general, they are no longer earning.

WTF does that have to do with anything?




.

That one got me too. I sincerely wish she would elaborate on that one, with keen attention to the issue of relevance,

may it please the Court...

 

[PoliticalChic]

WTF! Those poor people sure do have it good!

Wouldn't it be just crazy if the folks contributing to pay for the welfare programs had less than the recipients???

Just mad crazy, huh??



OK...here it is:

"In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year"
In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year | ZeroHedge



Let's arguendo, assume that you are convinced of the above.
Now, ask yourself what is behind such a crazy Liberal/progressive/Democrat policy.

It is the path to enlightenment, grasshopper.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When did they do that?

Why?

Is this some slimy way of admitting that my statement is true?

Why not simply admit same?

You didn't make the statement, you copied it from someone else. But someone else isn't here.

So I'm asking what it refers to. What eligibility standards changed and when?

….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part
of the program’s growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease
eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have
risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007
and are now roughly 10 percent higher than
they were when Obama took office. Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in
the Food Stamps Program,” Economix,
Casey B. Mulligan: The Sharp Increase in the Food Stamps Program - NYTimes.com
Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected | CNS News



Hey...is it true that you work for the government, and your job is to make them look good?

If so....based on job performance, I'd fire you, Red.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Her desire to widen the gap between rich and poor in this country, which is mainstream conservative policy, that part comes across loud and clear.

Do you want to dispute that? Do you want to show us how in sum total the conservative approach to economic policy does NOT widen the gap between rich and poor?

You never tire of proving what a dunce you are.

1. The elderly own stuff. The stuff already owned is not federally taxed.
In general, they are no longer earning.


2. Working American pay taxes, which are deducted from their earnings. Deducted...meaning that they can save less, or they have less to buy stuff with.
Taxation is what stands in the way of working Americans becoming rich.


3. Conservative policy is geared toward decreasing the size of government. That means, making it smaller. The corollary is lower taxation.
Refer to #2 above.

4. Liberal/progressive/Democrat policy is to increase the size of government. That mean, make it bigger.
Guess what that means as far as taxation?
Refer to #2.

a. But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html

Refer to #2.

Now, go sit back in the dumb row and mull that over.

The issue is,

do conservatives want to widen the gap between rich and poor?

You want to cut aid to low income Americans; you want to cut taxes for the Rich. The sum total of that exercise nets out to a widening of the gap between rich and poor.

What part of that, specifically, is inaccurate?

I should pay you, you make this so easy.

"do conservatives want to widen the gap between rich and poor?"
Of course not.


Liberal welfare policy accomplishes exactly what they want: folks beholden to them.

a. Studies show that as welfare payments increase, people decrease efforts to get out from under same, i.e., they stop working

b. tax policy punishes those who find work to get out of welfare.



c. some are too dumb to comprehend what is going on.
Raise your paw.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You never tire of proving what a dunce you are.

Uh-oh, here comes big fat train wreck.

1. The elderly own stuff. The stuff already owned is not federally taxed.
In general, they are no longer earning.

WTF does that have to do with anything?




So, if we just give away all public resources for free, that would solve the problem?

What's in those big macs you eat like candy?




What's the conservative policy on paying back money you borrowed?

Wishful thinking (while you stuff your fat face)?

4. Liberal/progressive/Democrat policy is to increase the size of government. That mean, make it bigger.
Guess what that means as far as taxation?
Refer to #2.

A strawman... made of big macs.

Chow down fatty.

Now, go sit back in the dumb row and mull that over.

Get back in line for seconds, you stupid fat bitch.

Based on your Voluntary Tourette's, I've ripped you pretty good.

Don’t let me keep you…I know you are hungrily searching for a new human host organism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You never tire of proving what a dunce you are.

1. The elderly own stuff. The stuff already owned is not federally taxed.
In general, they are no longer earning.


2. Working American pay taxes, which are deducted from their earnings. Deducted...meaning that they can save less, or they have less to buy stuff with.
Taxation is what stands in the way of working Americans becoming rich.


3. Conservative policy is geared toward decreasing the size of government. That means, making it smaller. The corollary is lower taxation.
Refer to #2 above.

4. Liberal/progressive/Democrat policy is to increase the size of government. That mean, make it bigger.
Guess what that means as far as taxation?
Refer to #2.

a. But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html

Refer to #2.

Now, go sit back in the dumb row and mull that over.

The issue is,

do conservatives want to widen the gap between rich and poor?

You want to cut aid to low income Americans; you want to cut taxes for the Rich. The sum total of that exercise nets out to a widening of the gap between rich and poor.

What part of that, specifically, is inaccurate?

I should pay you, you make this so easy.

"do conservatives want to widen the gap between rich and poor?"
Of course not.


Liberal welfare policy accomplishes exactly what they want: folks beholden to them.

a. Studies show that as welfare payments increase, people decrease efforts to get out from under same, i.e., they stop working

b. tax policy punishes those who find work to get out of welfare.



c. some are too dumb to comprehend what is going on.
Raise your paw.

You didn't show anything to be inaccurate. Try again.

btw, the earned income credit, that conservatives widely oppose and want to cut, is specifically designed to reward WORK.

 

[NYcarbineer]

WTF! Those poor people sure do have it good!

Wouldn't it be just crazy if the folks contributing to pay for the welfare programs had less than the recipients???

Just mad crazy, huh??



OK...here it is:

"In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year"
In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year | ZeroHedge



Let's arguendo, assume that you are convinced of the above.
Now, ask yourself what is behind such a crazy Liberal/progressive/Democrat policy.

It is the path to enlightenment, grasshopper.

Do you have less disposable income than the average welfare recipient?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why?

Is this some slimy way of admitting that my statement is true?

Why not simply admit same?

You didn't make the statement, you copied it from someone else. But someone else isn't here.

So I'm asking what it refers to. What eligibility standards changed and when?

….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part
of the program’s growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease
eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have
risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007
and are now roughly 10 percent higher than
they were when Obama took office. Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in
the Food Stamps Program,” Economix,
Casey B. Mulligan: The Sharp Increase in the Food Stamps Program - NYTimes.com
Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected | CNS News



Hey...is it true that you work for the government, and your job is to make them look good?

If so....based on job performance, I'd fire you, Red.

What level would you reduce the food stamp program to? Or would you eliminate it altogether?