Proven Right Yet Again!

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I love it when you prove how truly stupid you are.

They used that fib on Romney....and you bought it.


The Cayman Islands used to be known as a “tax haven,” a place where people could set up an account with a friendly banker whose lips were sealed. However, tax experts, say in 2009 the Caymans agreed to exchange tax information with at least a dozen IRS-type organizations around the world. Suddenly, it became more difficult to hide assets or income and some banks actually shut down their operations on its sunny shores. Why does Mitt Romney have money in the Caymans? Two potential reasons. - CSMonitor.com



In 2010, the IRS and the Treasury Department passed legislation called theForeign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), and those regulations will force many foreign banks to divulge the identities and account information of U.S. customers with sizeable offshore accounts that until now may have remained hidden for decades. Some parts of the legislation won't take effect for a few years, but this year, many American expatriates must divulge personal information about their overseas accounts to the IRS. FATCA: How the IRS Plans to Track Down Secret Offshore Accounts | InvestingAnswers

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Can't you get ANYTHING right????

EITC is of Republican provenance



1. The EITC has a sterling Republican heritage. It was first instituted in the 1920s by a Republican Congress at the instigation of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Repealed in 1943, Republican President Gerald Ford revived it in 1975.
a. EITC supporters argued that because the credit would be available only to those with earned income, it would reinforce work incentives and help get people off welfare. By making the credit refundable, it would offset the disincentive effects of higher payroll tax rates, which had risen from 4.8 percent on workers and employers in 1970 to 5.85 percent in 1975.
2. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan supported a big increase in the EITC rate from 10 percent to 14 percent. In 1990, George H.W. Bush supported a further increase.
3. Despite the exploding cost of the EITC, Republicans in Congress created another tax credit in the 1997 tax bill. The child credit was intended to make it easier for mothers to stay at home and raise their children, rather than work outside the home. Republicans and the Earned Income Tax Credit - Bruce Bartlett - [page]
4. “…the earned income tax credit ("EITC") that was enacted by Gerald Ford and then re-enacted and expanded in 1986 by... could it be, don't tell me, say it ain't so!... Ronald Reagan.” Paul Abrams: Reagan the Redistributor: Check Out the Earned Income Tax Credit
5. “…a child care tax deduction included in the immense Internal Revenue Code of 1954…” Welcome | Work and Family Researchers Network
6. The origins of the EITC, which has done so much to reduce income tax liabilities for lower-income people, can be found in Ronald Reagans famous testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 1972, where he proposed exempting the working poor from all Social Security and income taxes as an alternative to welfare. It was that testimony that led Congress to adopt the credit in 1975. As President, Reagan cut federal income tax rates across the board for all taxpayers by 25%. He also indexed the tax brackets for all taxpayers to prevent inflation from pushing workers into higher tax brackets. In the Tax Reform Act of 1986, President Reagan reduced the federal income tax rate for ”folks who make less” all the way down to 15%. That act also doubled the personal exemption, shielding more income from taxation for everybody, but a higher percentage of income of lower-income workers.
Gingrich’s Contract with America adopted a child tax credit of $500 per child that reduced tax liabilities of lower-income people by a higher percentage than for higher income people. And Bush doubled that credit to $1,000 per child, and made it refundable so that low-income people who do not even pay $1,000 in federal income tax still get full credit. And Bush adopted a lower tax bracket of 10%, a reduction of 33% (compared to the 11.6% drop for highest income workers.)
Thus, by 2007, the bottom 40% paid no income tax.
Ferrara, “ America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” p. 220.

 

[Moonglow]

I seriously don't care. Naturally after a major crash we had in 08 these things would go up. Usuage is going to spike because so many jobs where lost. I don't blame obama for a natural cause and affect. Hell I don't even blame bush for the spike. It would happen regardless of who was in office ritht after a crash. Mccain would have seen the samething.

What a meaningless point to whine about. You where right about nothing.

She again champions he opinion is what she got right.
But it shows her coulous nature towards anyone getting food.

 

[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.

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

Pleeeeszze....

Why speak of my wealth?
I am immensely wealthy.

In fact...at this very moment, Jeeves is driving me around while Humbert types my posts.

But...I do feel for you peasants.


Lydia...peel me another grape.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Are you proposing the poor be fed their own aborted babies?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Changing the subject?


A wise move when you're getting thrashed from pillar to post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I seriously don't care. Naturally after a major crash we had in 08 these things would go up. Usuage is going to spike because so many jobs where lost. I don't blame obama for a natural cause and affect. Hell I don't even blame bush for the spike. It would happen regardless of who was in office ritht after a crash. Mccain would have seen the samething.

What a meaningless point to whine about. You where right about nothing.

She again champions he opinion is what she got right.
But it shows her coulous nature towards anyone getting food.

Wait....let me get out my Rosetta Stone to translate that.

 

[Greenbeard]

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

The one eligibility change you can point to is "work requirements [for SNAP] were lifted from April 1, 2009, through Sept. 30, 2010"?

Wow, what a "pernicious," if brief, explosion of the welfare state.

 

[koshergrl]

I seriously don't care. Naturally after a major crash we had in 08 these things would go up. Usuage is going to spike because so many jobs where lost. I don't blame obama for a natural cause and affect. Hell I don't even blame bush for the spike. It would happen regardless of who was in office ritht after a crash. Mccain would have seen the samething.

What a meaningless point to whine about. You where right about nothing.

She again champions he opinion is what she got right.
But it shows her coulous nature towards anyone getting food.

Wait....let me get out my Rosetta Stone to translate that.

What the hell is coulous nature?

And doesn't everyone get food? We still need food to survive, right?

 

[koshergrl]

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

The one eligibility change you can point to is "work requirements [for SNAP] were lifted from April 1, 2009, through Sept. 30, 2010"?

Wow, what a "pernicious," if brief, explosion of the welfare state.

For the most part, the work requirement doesn't exist. It exists on paper, but workers understand that no criticism will come to them if they exempt every single applicant. And as a result, most do. The funding for the work programs was cut almost entirely.

 

[NYcarbineer]

….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?

Changing the subject?


A wise move when you're getting thrashed from pillar to post.

I thought the subject of the thread was that you think we spend too much on food stamps.

How much would you spend?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I seriously don't care. Naturally after a major crash we had in 08 these things would go up. Usuage is going to spike because so many jobs where lost. I don't blame obama for a natural cause and affect. Hell I don't even blame bush for the spike. It would happen regardless of who was in office ritht after a crash. Mccain would have seen the samething.

What a meaningless point to whine about. You where right about nothing.

She again champions he opinion is what she got right.
But it shows her coulous nature towards anyone getting food.

Wait....let me get out my Rosetta Stone to translate that.

I've read your blogs. You really aren't in the category of people qualified to school others on spelling and grammar.

 

[Old Rocks]

I knew the first people targeted would be the elderly.

I AM elderly, but I would rather die than see what Obama envisions to come to fruition.

And I am old but not elderly. And I am going to help bring about the President's vision for a more just nation.

 

[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.

I love it when you prove how truly stupid you are.

They used that fib on Romney....and you bought it.


The Cayman Islands used to be known as a “tax haven,” a place where people could set up an account with a friendly banker whose lips were sealed. However, tax experts, say in 2009 the Caymans agreed to exchange tax information with at least a dozen IRS-type organizations around the world. Suddenly, it became more difficult to hide assets or income and some banks actually shut down their operations on its sunny shores. Why does Mitt Romney have money in the Caymans? Two potential reasons. - CSMonitor.com



In 2010, the IRS and the Treasury Department passed legislation called theForeign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), and those regulations will force many foreign banks to divulge the identities and account information of U.S. customers with sizeable offshore accounts that until now may have remained hidden for decades. Some parts of the legislation won't take effect for a few years, but this year, many American expatriates must divulge personal information about their overseas accounts to the IRS. FATCA: How the IRS Plans to Track Down Secret Offshore Accounts | InvestingAnswers

Of course. Romney parked money in the Cayman's for no particular reason. lolol

Obama's president, btw. Romney's shopping for a roof rack for his Audi.

 

[koshergrl]

She again champions he opinion is what she got right.
But it shows her coulous nature towards anyone getting food.

Wait....let me get out my Rosetta Stone to translate that.

I've read your blogs. You really aren't in the category of people qualified to school others on spelling and grammar.

It's one thing to make the occasional mistake.

It's another to write complete nonsense.

Perhaps you can translate the meaning of the post in question? Because it's not just spelling/grammar...it's garbled gibbering.

 

[PoliticalChic]

….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

The one eligibility change you can point to is "work requirements [for SNAP] were lifted from April 1, 2009, through Sept. 30, 2010"?

Wow, what a "pernicious," if brief, explosion of the welfare state.

For the most part, the work requirement doesn't exist. It exists on paper, but workers understand that no criticism will come to them if they exempt every single applicant. And as a result, most do. The funding for the work programs was cut almost entirely.

Thank you.
I appreciate the expertise you bring to this area....

 

[PoliticalChic]

She again champions he opinion is what she got right.
But it shows her coulous nature towards anyone getting food.

Wait....let me get out my Rosetta Stone to translate that.

What the hell is coulous nature?

And doesn't everyone get food? We still need food to survive, right?

I've seen his avi.....

Perhaps he was thinking of


"Culottes is a word that originated in the French language. Historically, "culottes" referred to the knee-breeches commonly worn by gentlemen of the European upper-classes from the late Middle Ages or Renaissance through the early nineteenth century. This style of tight pants ending just below the knee was first popularized in France during the reign of Henry III (1574–1589).[1] Culottes were normally closed and fastened about the leg, to the knee, by either buttons, a strap and buckle, or by a draw-string. During the French Revolution of 1789–1799, working-class revolutionaries were known as the "sans-culottes" – literally, "without culottes" – a name derived from their rejection of aristocratic apparel.[2] In the United States, only the first five presidents, from George Washington through James Monroe, wore culottes according to the old-fashioned style of the eighteenth century."
Culottes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



...in fact....there may be some sort of nasty fantasy involved!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

She again champions he opinion is what she got right.
But it shows her coulous nature towards anyone getting food.

Wait....let me get out my Rosetta Stone to translate that.

I've read your blogs. You really aren't in the category of people qualified to school others on spelling and grammar.

I can't but feel that your posts are an attempt to mirror a number of mine.


Wise choice of paradigms!


Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Charles Caleb Colton


...but I fear you may have bitten off a bit more than one of your ability can handle.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I knew the first people targeted would be the elderly.

I AM elderly, but I would rather die than see what Obama envisions to come to fruition.

And I am old but not elderly. And I am going to help bring about the President's vision for a more just nation.

A 'just nation' is hardly the vision this President has in mind.

But...you've given me an idea for an OP....and since you seem unaware, perhaps more of an exposé.
And I am going to help reveal same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

I love it when you prove how truly stupid you are.

They used that fib on Romney....and you bought it.


The Cayman Islands used to be known as a “tax haven,” a place where people could set up an account with a friendly banker whose lips were sealed. However, tax experts, say in 2009 the Caymans agreed to exchange tax information with at least a dozen IRS-type organizations around the world. Suddenly, it became more difficult to hide assets or income and some banks actually shut down their operations on its sunny shores. Why does Mitt Romney have money in the Caymans? Two potential reasons. - CSMonitor.com



In 2010, the IRS and the Treasury Department passed legislation called theForeign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), and those regulations will force many foreign banks to divulge the identities and account information of U.S. customers with sizeable offshore accounts that until now may have remained hidden for decades. Some parts of the legislation won't take effect for a few years, but this year, many American expatriates must divulge personal information about their overseas accounts to the IRS. FATCA: How the IRS Plans to Track Down Secret Offshore Accounts | InvestingAnswers

Of course. Romney parked money in the Cayman's for no particular reason. lolol

Obama's president, btw. Romney's shopping for a roof rack for his Audi.

I am all too familiar with President Sauron, Orc.