The entitlement, Santa Claus , "free stuff" society...

[healthmyths]

Here are the "entitlement","Santa Claus",free stuff benefits to the "poor"..
In 2008, the fund that foots the bill for this program contributed $819 million to subsidize low-income telephone services. The fund is projected to grow to over $1 billion this year. That’s $1 billion of over $800 billion the United States will spend on welfare in 2010. Welfare recipients now eligible to receive cell phones
Welfare recipients now eligible to receive cell phones

a) Free Cell phone (my cell phone I PAY is about $100/month)
if the poor person receives just one of the below FREE entitlements:

* Food stamps * Medicaid * Section 8 * Supplemental Security Income * National School Lunch Program

b) 40 million Americans on food stamps get $200/month in free food.

it cost $75.7 billion in 2011 compared to $35 billion in 2008; and enrollment has hit an all-time high of 46.7 million recipients. Meanwhile, the number of children receiving free school lunches has inflated from 18 to 21 million — an unprecedented jump —
about 2.1 million households (6 million) use Section 8 the Housing Choice Voucher program, pays a large

c) portion of the rents and utilities of or the Housing Choice Voucher Program up to $1,000 /month in FREE housing...

So these people get
=== $ 5,666 in EIC cash,
=== $12,000 free housing ,
=== $ 2,400 free food,
=== $ 1,200 in free cell phone plus
=== $ 5,000 a year in free health care from Medicaid.
So this is about $26,000 a year in FREE MONEY, free goods and free services...

For all of you that think this is a GOOD positive direction to go for society my question is..

Should this stop and if not how far should it go? Should ALL Americans get "FREE" stuff and if so WHO will pay for it?

 

[Avatar4321]

Robbers corrupt the people and often lead to the destruction of the people. We need to turn away from this soon or else I dont think we survive as we currently are

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The argument against individual welfare has been tremendously weakened in the last 5 years by the trillions of dollars in corporate welfare given to banks and insurance companies.

 

[Freemason9]

Social welfare programs are more important now than they were in the pre-Reagan years--before the government effectively outlawed labor unions, and back when middle class families earned better real wages. Now, because American wages are so low and poverty is so extreme in the U.S., social welfare has become an essential means of preventing real class warfare (in the form of strikes, demonstrations, and riots).

You either need to raise worker incomes or continue welfare, unless you want to double the prison population and turn the U.S. into a police state.

This is the cost of poorly-regulated capitalism.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Social welfare programs are more important now than they were in the pre-Reagan years--before the government effectively outlawed labor unions, and back when middle class families earned better real wages. Now, because American wages are so low and poverty is so extreme in the U.S., social welfare has become an essential means of preventing real class warfare (in the form of strikes, demonstrations, and riots).

You either need to raise worker incomes or continue welfare, unless you want to double the prison population and turn the U.S. into a police state.

This is the cost of poorly-regulated capitalism.

The stupid is strong in this one....

 

[Greenbeard]

Should this stop and if not how far should it go? Should ALL Americans get "FREE" stuff and if so WHO will pay for it?

Aren't you the one always complaining that Obamacare might threaten the gym membership in your bloated, overpriced Medicare Advantage plan?

 

[Freemason9]

Social welfare programs are more important now than they were in the pre-Reagan years--before the government effectively outlawed labor unions, and back when middle class families earned better real wages. Now, because American wages are so low and poverty is so extreme in the U.S., social welfare has become an essential means of preventing real class warfare (in the form of strikes, demonstrations, and riots).

You either need to raise worker incomes or continue welfare, unless you want to double the prison population and turn the U.S. into a police state.

This is the cost of poorly-regulated capitalism.

The stupid is strong in this one....

Feel quite free to elaborate . . . other than the standard right wing chorus of "obummer bad, you stupid, hurrr gurrrr."

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Social welfare programs are more important now than they were in the pre-Reagan years--before the government effectively outlawed labor unions, and back when middle class families earned better real wages. Now, because American wages are so low and poverty is so extreme in the U.S., social welfare has become an essential means of preventing real class warfare (in the form of strikes, demonstrations, and riots).

You either need to raise worker incomes or continue welfare, unless you want to double the prison population and turn the U.S. into a police state.

This is the cost of poorly-regulated capitalism.

The stupid is strong in this one....

Feel quite free to elaborate . . . other than the standard right wing chorus of "obummer bad, you stupid, hurrr gurrrr."

Ok... the government has NOT effectively outlawed union, unions have effectively outlived their usefulness. Secondly, in an effective, functioning economy, you don't need welfare, except in extreme instances.

The progressives have created this demand for welfare by destroying the low wage earners and their families and by kneecapping the middle class and selling a great number of people that to take is divine.

This is the end result of over-regulated capitalism and Progressivism.

Have a nice day.

 

[francoHFW]

Is yours a $6 phone with 8 minutes a day, dupe?

OP- Total Pubcrappe. Change the channel.

 

[kidrocks]

The free cell phone service started under Bush.

 

[kidrocks]

Here are the "entitlement","Santa Claus",free stuff benefits to the "poor"..
In 2008, the fund that foots the bill for this program contributed $819 million to subsidize low-income telephone services. The fund is projected to grow to over $1 billion this year. That’s $1 billion of over $800 billion the United States will spend on welfare in 2010. Welfare recipients now eligible to receive cell phones
Welfare recipients now eligible to receive cell phones

a) Free Cell phone (my cell phone I PAY is about $100/month)
if the poor person receives just one of the below FREE entitlements:

* Food stamps * Medicaid * Section 8 * Supplemental Security Income * National School Lunch Program

b) 40 million Americans on food stamps get $200/month in free food.

it cost $75.7 billion in 2011 compared to $35 billion in 2008; and enrollment has hit an all-time high of 46.7 million recipients. Meanwhile, the number of children receiving free school lunches has inflated from 18 to 21 million — an unprecedented jump —
about 2.1 million households (6 million) use Section 8 the Housing Choice Voucher program, pays a large

c) portion of the rents and utilities of or the Housing Choice Voucher Program up to $1,000 /month in FREE housing...

So these people get
=== $ 5,666 in EIC cash,
=== $12,000 free housing ,
=== $ 2,400 free food,
=== $ 1,200 in free cell phone plus
=== $ 5,000 a year in free health care from Medicaid.
So this is about $26,000 a year in FREE MONEY, free goods and free services...

For all of you that think this is a GOOD positive direction to go for society my question is..

Should this stop and if not how far should it go? Should ALL Americans get "FREE" stuff and if so WHO will pay for it?

The Bush Wall St crash started all this mess.

 

[g5000]

$1 trillion of tax expenditures every year, and you have the gall to bitch about less than a billion?

You want to talk about gifts, how about that mortgage interest rate deduction you get? That's a highly regressive gift. How about that child tax credit?

The amount of gifts in the tax code add up to almost the same amount as what is received by the government.

A trillion bucks. $1,000,000,000,000.


There's your gifts, staring you in the face.

.

 

[francoHFW]

These free phones are not paid for by taxpayer money, according to Snopes. You are duped, as usual.

snopes.com: Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

 

[g5000]

These free phones are not paid for by taxpayer money, according to Snopes. You are duped, as usual.

snopes.com: Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

They are paid for by everyone else who has a phone, against their will, which is pretty much a distinction without a difference.

But still. Instead of focusing on the gifts to negroes, let's get to the shit that is costing taxpayers one thousand times as much.

Tax expenditures.

Or we can forget all that and just throw up that video of the ugly black lady asking for her phone and pretend we aren't racists.

.

 

[g5000]

Tax Expenditures Must Be Part Of The Current Government Funding Debate | Fulcrum Inquiry

There's a bill in Congress that was sponsored by Republicans to eliminate the utter corruption of our tax code.


But you would never know that from the bullshit storm on this forum. We're too busy posting black women asking for their free phone.




.

 

[G.T.]

$1 trillion of tax expenditures every year, and you have the gall to bitch about less than a billion?

You want to talk about gifts, how about that mortgage interest rate deduction you get? That's a highly regressive gift. How about that child tax credit?

The amount of gifts in the tax code add up to almost the same amount as what is received by the government.

A trillion bucks. $1,000,000,000,000.


There's your gifts, staring you in the face.

.

qft

 

[Freemason9]

Soggy said--

Ok... the government has NOT effectively outlawed union, unions have effectively outlived their usefulness. Secondly, in an effective, functioning economy, you don't need welfare, except in extreme instances.

From Revive Labor's Power - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

"The simplest thing government could do to reverse the 33-year growth in income inequality is to make it easier to start and maintain a union.

"Although income inequality is growing in comparable nations around the world, it is more extreme and growing more rapidly here. A big reason is that labor unions, which have faced rough times everywhere with the rise of globalization, have declined much more in the United States.

"You can't even discuss solving inequality without considering how government can help rebuild — really, stop suppressing — unions. Private-sector union density peaked in the early 1950s at almost 40 percent. Today it’s down to 7 percent, which is about where it was when Franklin Roosevelt entered office. It’s as if the New Deal, which made possible the rise of America’s labor movement, never happened.

"Revitalizing labor is not a popular cause nowadays, even among liberals, but there’s little point in even discussing how to solve the inequality problem if you won’t consider ways the government could help rebuild — really, stop suppressing — unions. If you graph a line charting the decline in union membership and then superimpose another line charting the decline in middle-class income share, the lines will be nearly identical. That is not a coincidence.

"The uniquely American decline of organized labor was brought about in large part by the slow-working effects of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which made it considerably more difficult to organize. (The "card-check" bill that labor failed to push through Congress in 2009, which would have reduced obstacles to unionization, was aimed at repealing one of Taft-Hartley’s more onerous provisions.) Repealing Taft-Hartley would be the best single thing Congress could do to reverse income inequality, but that’s a tall order.

"Richard Kahlenberg and Moshe Marvit have proposed passing a law that would make organizing a civil right protected under federal law. That would allow any worker fired for trying to start a union to sue the boss. As things stand now, such firings are illegal, but the penalties are so minuscule that it’s economically irrational for businesses to obey the law.

The progressives have created this demand for welfare by destroying the low wage earners and their families and by kneecapping the middle class and selling a great number of people that to take is divine.

I don't understand what you said, so I can't respond to it. How exactly do you blame "progressives" for low wage structures for American workers?

This is the end result of over-regulated capitalism and Progressivism.

Again, this is nonsensical. There is nothing at all to support this statement.

Do you just make crap up?