The FACTS on Food Stamps

[Dad2three]

What are we up to now 48% of Amerika is on food stamps now? Do you see something wrong here?

Democrat's are proud so many people are getting assistance.Which is fine.People need help from time to time.My issue is the abuse.
Republicans see the amount of people on it as a bad thing in the sense that abled bodied people should be working not on assistance for years and years.

That's why the ONLY policy they back is tax cuts for trhe rich? While the tax 'burden' is the lowest SUSTAINED 'burden' in 80+ years? WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS PROMISED FOR THE LOW TAX RATES AGAIN?

 

[Dad2three]

What are we up to now 48% of Amerika is on food stamps now? Do you see something wrong here?

Democrat's are proud so many people are getting assistance.Which is fine.People need help from time to time.My issue is the abuse.
Republicans see the amount of people on it as a bad thing in the sense that abled bodied people should be working not on assistance for years and years.

Those that truly need help are rarely noticed as they are very discreet in their use of such programs. However, those that abuse it don't seem to care who knows they're on it. Been in the grocery store many times when an EBT user buys food with their card only to purchase, in a separate transaction, things like beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets. If they can't afford to buy their own food as indicated by their applying for food stamps, they shouldn't have money to buy those other things.

Yes, ONLY if the 'poor' live REALLY poorly, should they get help *shaking head*


Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans $3 Trillion Each Year
Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans 3 Trillion Each Year

 

[Conservative65]

What are we up to now 48% of Amerika is on food stamps now? Do you see something wrong here?

Democrat's are proud so many people are getting assistance.Which is fine.People need help from time to time.My issue is the abuse.
Republicans see the amount of people on it as a bad thing in the sense that abled bodied people should be working not on assistance for years and years.

Those that truly need help are rarely noticed as they are very discreet in their use of such programs. However, those that abuse it don't seem to care who knows they're on it. Been in the grocery store many times when an EBT user buys food with their card only to purchase, in a separate transaction, things like beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets. If they can't afford to buy their own food as indicated by their applying for food stamps, they shouldn't have money to buy those other things.

Yes, ONLY if the 'poor' live REALLY poorly, should they get help *shaking head*


Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans $3 Trillion Each Year
Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans 3 Trillion Each Year

If they aren't living poorly, that means they aren't truly poor. If they can buy items such as those I listed with cash, no one needs to buy their food. That money can be used to buy food rather than those other things.

Since leeches don't pay the taxes that fund the handouts they receive, seems they avoid those taxes.

 

[Dad2three]

Inspired by Pete's asinine rant on the poor, here is the no-spin facts on SNAP (food stamps). Maybe now you will stop listening to the bullshit propaganda that comes from the Republican party. I put what I consider to be the most important facts in bold, but I do encourage you to read all of it.

SNAP is targeted at the most vulnerable.

76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits.

SNAP eligibility is limited to households with gross income of no more than 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline ($19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about 91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 75% of the poverty guideline ($14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013).[ii]

The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744; net monthly income of $338 after the standard deduction and, for certain households, deductions for child care, medical expenses, and shelter costs; and countable resources of $331, such as a bank account.[iii]


SNAP is responsive to changes in need, providing needed food assistance as families fall into economic hardship and then transitioning away as their financial situation stabilizes.

SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [iv]

As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[v]

SNAP has a strong record of program integrity.

SNAP error rates declined by 57% since FY2000, from 8.91% in FY2000 to a record low of 3.80% in FY2011.[vi] The accuracy rate of 96.2% (FY2011) is an all-time program high and is considerably higher than other major benefit programs, for example Medicare fee-for-service (91.5%) or Medicare Advantage Part C (88.6%). [vii]

Two-thirds of all SNAP payment errors are a result of caseworker error. Nearly one-fifth are underpayments, which occur when eligible participants receive less in benefits than they are eligible to receive.[viii]

The national rate of food stamp trafficking declined from about 3.8 cents per dollar of benefits redeemed in 1993 to about 1.0 cent per dollar during the years 2006 to 2008.[ix] As you may have read in local news, USDA is aggressively fighting trafficking, but while there are individual cases of program abuse, for every one instance of fraud, there are hundreds of stories of heartbreaking need.

The need for food assistance is already greater than SNAP can fill.

SNAP benefits don’t last most participants the whole month. 90% of SNAP benefits are redeemed by the third week of the month, and 58% of food bank clients currently receiving SNAP benefits turn to food banks for assistance at least 6 months out of the year.[x]

The average monthly SNAP benefit per person is $133.85, or less than $1.50 per person, per meal. [xi]

Only 55% of food insecure individuals are income-eligible for SNAP, and 29% are not income-eligible for any federal food assistance.[xii]



Categorical Eligibility

Categorical eligibility allows many people to automatically enroll in SNAP who wouldn’t otherwise qualify for the program.

Categorical eligibility does not allow households to enroll automatically; they must still apply through the regular SNAP application process, which has rigorous procedures for documenting applicants’ income, citizenship, work status, and other circumstances.

Categorical eligibility allows states the option of aligning SNAP eligibility rules for gross income and asset limits with TANF to reduce administrative costs and simplify the eligibility determination process. While three-fourths of SNAP households were categorically eligible, almost all would also have been eligible for SNAP under standard rules.[xiii]

While a small number of households would not have met gross income and asset eligibility rules without categorical eligibility, SNAP families are still among the poorest households:

The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744 and net monthly income of $338.[xiv]
SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with gross income under 130% of poverty and net income at or below 100% of poverty. While categorical eligibility allows states to set a higher gross income limit, only 1.5% of SNAP households in 2010 had monthly net income above 150% of the poverty line, so the policy has not made SNAP available to large numbers of households with incomes above the federal gross income limit of 130% of poverty.[xv]
SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with assets of no more than $2000 ($3250 for households with a senior or disabled member). The average SNAP household still has assets of only $331.[xvi] Additionally, the SNAP asset limit of $2,000 has not been adjusted for inflation in 25 years and has fallen by 48% in real terms since 1986.[xvii]

Categorical eligibility has dramatically increased program participation.

The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.

The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.
SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [xviii]

As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[xix]

Eliminating categorical eligibility would significantly reduce costs.

Eliminating categorical eligibility would achieve savings by causing about 2-3 million low-income people currently enrolled in SNAP to lose their benefits.[xx] Many more families newly applying for assistance would have their benefit issuance delayed because of the increased complexity of applying and additional processing time required. This human cost is too high a price to pay with so many families struggling to get by in this economy.

In addition to the loss of needed food assistance for struggling families, this savings would come at the expense of increased administrative costs. Eliminating the streamlined application process that categorical eligibility allows would require states to allocate staff time to duplicate enrollment procedures and incur the cost of modifying their computer systems, reprinting applications and manuals, and retraining staff.


Program Growth

Generous eligibility rules and program fraud and abuse have caused participation in SNAP to balloon, sharply driving up the cost of the program when the nation can least afford it.


The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.

SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [xxi]

As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[xxii]

SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities

(Their sources are straight from government data)

The only bullshit being spread is from people like you that think one person owes another person anything. You can post whatever percentages you want. Until you bleeding hearts reach into your own pockets and fund what you think should be funded with your own money, STFU about what someone else should fund. If anyone you know or know of needs anything, write a check.

Hmm what is your opinion about all those hypocritical tea baggers on Medicare?

In case you didn't know, those using Medicare were forced to contribute to it. I am forced to contribute to Social Security. When I reach the age where I get it, although I support the ability to opt out, I will take whatever comes my way. That doesn't make me a hypocrite because I was required to be a part of it. On top of that, I'll take it whether I need it or not even if it means someone else who needs it more gets less.

So NO, like your God, Ayn Rand, you will NOT stand on principle

 

[Conservative65]

What are we up to now 48% of Amerika is on food stamps now? Do you see something wrong here?

Democrat's are proud so many people are getting assistance.Which is fine.People need help from time to time.My issue is the abuse.
Republicans see the amount of people on it as a bad thing in the sense that abled bodied people should be working not on assistance for years and years.

Those that truly need help are rarely noticed as they are very discreet in their use of such programs. However, those that abuse it don't seem to care who knows they're on it. Been in the grocery store many times when an EBT user buys food with their card only to purchase, in a separate transaction, things like beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets. If they can't afford to buy their own food as indicated by their applying for food stamps, they shouldn't have money to buy those other things.

you can't spend food stamp benefits for non food items, it is programmed to reject anything not considered food.
Now If the EBT card has cash funds from AFDC then there is funds for what is allowed by each state for purchase...

I didn't say they used EBT on those things. I said SEPARATE TRANSACTION WITH CASH. Either read it all or STFU.

How about you mind your own goddamn business?

Since I'm one of those that funds those lazy son of a bitches, it is MY business. How about you fund those lazy bastards before demanding I do.

 

[Moonglow]

Hey, it ain't my fault you don't know how to play tax avoision, must not be to smert....

Coming from the criminal tax evader and the person that can't even spell "smart". If you're going to tell someone they're not smart, at least spell it correctly retard.

Do you have a sewn asshole?

If you keep evading taxes, you better have one. Bubba would like your kind.

I call you out for misspelling a simple word like smart and that's all you have?

Not really I just like people trying to show how much better they are when a pun is made...There are many things taxes pay for, some I like, some I don't..But it ain't worth losing hair over....
By the vie, tax avoision is legal...and the reason I ask if you have a sewn asshole is that you seem rather anal retentive about a subject...

To show I'm better than you doesn't take much.

Call it what you want but it sounds like you try to call something a certain thing to avoid admitting you're nothing more than a common criminal thug. By definition, tax avoision means it can't clearly be determined as avoidance or evasion.

 

[Moonglow]

Democrat's are proud so many people are getting assistance.Which is fine.People need help from time to time.My issue is the abuse.
Republicans see the amount of people on it as a bad thing in the sense that abled bodied people should be working not on assistance for years and years.

Those that truly need help are rarely noticed as they are very discreet in their use of such programs. However, those that abuse it don't seem to care who knows they're on it. Been in the grocery store many times when an EBT user buys food with their card only to purchase, in a separate transaction, things like beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets. If they can't afford to buy their own food as indicated by their applying for food stamps, they shouldn't have money to buy those other things.

you can't spend food stamp benefits for non food items, it is programmed to reject anything not considered food.
Now If the EBT card has cash funds from AFDC then there is funds for what is allowed by each state for purchase...

I didn't say they used EBT on those things. I said SEPARATE TRANSACTION WITH CASH. Either read it all or STFU.

How about you mind your own goddamn business?

Since I'm one of those that funds those lazy son of a bitches, it is MY business. How about you fund those lazy bastards before demanding I do.

We all do with taxes, derp..

 

[Dad2three]

What are we up to now 48% of Amerika is on food stamps now? Do you see something wrong here?

Democrat's are proud so many people are getting assistance.Which is fine.People need help from time to time.My issue is the abuse.
Republicans see the amount of people on it as a bad thing in the sense that abled bodied people should be working not on assistance for years and years.

Those that truly need help are rarely noticed as they are very discreet in their use of such programs. However, those that abuse it don't seem to care who knows they're on it. Been in the grocery store many times when an EBT user buys food with their card only to purchase, in a separate transaction, things like beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets. If they can't afford to buy their own food as indicated by their applying for food stamps, they shouldn't have money to buy those other things.

Yes, ONLY if the 'poor' live REALLY poorly, should they get help *shaking head*


Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans $3 Trillion Each Year
Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans 3 Trillion Each Year

If they aren't living poorly, that means they aren't truly poor. If they can buy items such as those I listed with cash, no one needs to buy their food. That money can be used to buy food rather than those other things.

Since leeches don't pay the taxes that fund the handouts they receive, seems they avoid those taxes.

Got it, UNLESS someone lives dirt poor, like most Southern Staters, the Gov't shouldn't help them?

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation


In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala New Republic

 

[RKMBrown]

Let's put it another way. 1 out of 6 people face hunger. America is not as wealthy as people would like to believe.

Weird, 1% of US have more wealth than nearly 60% of US, what do you think that means?

It means the 1% don't have taxable income.

Just magically got 'wealthy' without income huh? lol

Yeah pretty much. You know of course that your chart does not dispute my claim, right?

 

[Conservative65]

Inspired by Pete's asinine rant on the poor, here is the no-spin facts on SNAP (food stamps). Maybe now you will stop listening to the bullshit propaganda that comes from the Republican party. I put what I consider to be the most important facts in bold, but I do encourage you to read all of it.

SNAP is targeted at the most vulnerable.

76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits.

SNAP eligibility is limited to households with gross income of no more than 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline ($19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about 91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 75% of the poverty guideline ($14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013).[ii]

The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744; net monthly income of $338 after the standard deduction and, for certain households, deductions for child care, medical expenses, and shelter costs; and countable resources of $331, such as a bank account.[iii]


SNAP is responsive to changes in need, providing needed food assistance as families fall into economic hardship and then transitioning away as their financial situation stabilizes.

SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [iv]

As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[v]

SNAP has a strong record of program integrity.

SNAP error rates declined by 57% since FY2000, from 8.91% in FY2000 to a record low of 3.80% in FY2011.[vi] The accuracy rate of 96.2% (FY2011) is an all-time program high and is considerably higher than other major benefit programs, for example Medicare fee-for-service (91.5%) or Medicare Advantage Part C (88.6%). [vii]

Two-thirds of all SNAP payment errors are a result of caseworker error. Nearly one-fifth are underpayments, which occur when eligible participants receive less in benefits than they are eligible to receive.[viii]

The national rate of food stamp trafficking declined from about 3.8 cents per dollar of benefits redeemed in 1993 to about 1.0 cent per dollar during the years 2006 to 2008.[ix] As you may have read in local news, USDA is aggressively fighting trafficking, but while there are individual cases of program abuse, for every one instance of fraud, there are hundreds of stories of heartbreaking need.

The need for food assistance is already greater than SNAP can fill.

SNAP benefits don’t last most participants the whole month. 90% of SNAP benefits are redeemed by the third week of the month, and 58% of food bank clients currently receiving SNAP benefits turn to food banks for assistance at least 6 months out of the year.[x]

The average monthly SNAP benefit per person is $133.85, or less than $1.50 per person, per meal. [xi]

Only 55% of food insecure individuals are income-eligible for SNAP, and 29% are not income-eligible for any federal food assistance.[xii]



Categorical Eligibility

Categorical eligibility allows many people to automatically enroll in SNAP who wouldn’t otherwise qualify for the program.

Categorical eligibility does not allow households to enroll automatically; they must still apply through the regular SNAP application process, which has rigorous procedures for documenting applicants’ income, citizenship, work status, and other circumstances.

Categorical eligibility allows states the option of aligning SNAP eligibility rules for gross income and asset limits with TANF to reduce administrative costs and simplify the eligibility determination process. While three-fourths of SNAP households were categorically eligible, almost all would also have been eligible for SNAP under standard rules.[xiii]

While a small number of households would not have met gross income and asset eligibility rules without categorical eligibility, SNAP families are still among the poorest households:

The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744 and net monthly income of $338.[xiv]
SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with gross income under 130% of poverty and net income at or below 100% of poverty. While categorical eligibility allows states to set a higher gross income limit, only 1.5% of SNAP households in 2010 had monthly net income above 150% of the poverty line, so the policy has not made SNAP available to large numbers of households with incomes above the federal gross income limit of 130% of poverty.[xv]
SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with assets of no more than $2000 ($3250 for households with a senior or disabled member). The average SNAP household still has assets of only $331.[xvi] Additionally, the SNAP asset limit of $2,000 has not been adjusted for inflation in 25 years and has fallen by 48% in real terms since 1986.[xvii]

Categorical eligibility has dramatically increased program participation.

The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.

The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.
SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [xviii]

As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[xix]

Eliminating categorical eligibility would significantly reduce costs.

Eliminating categorical eligibility would achieve savings by causing about 2-3 million low-income people currently enrolled in SNAP to lose their benefits.[xx] Many more families newly applying for assistance would have their benefit issuance delayed because of the increased complexity of applying and additional processing time required. This human cost is too high a price to pay with so many families struggling to get by in this economy.

In addition to the loss of needed food assistance for struggling families, this savings would come at the expense of increased administrative costs. Eliminating the streamlined application process that categorical eligibility allows would require states to allocate staff time to duplicate enrollment procedures and incur the cost of modifying their computer systems, reprinting applications and manuals, and retraining staff.


Program Growth

Generous eligibility rules and program fraud and abuse have caused participation in SNAP to balloon, sharply driving up the cost of the program when the nation can least afford it.


The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.

SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [xxi]

As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[xxii]

SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities

(Their sources are straight from government data)

The only bullshit being spread is from people like you that think one person owes another person anything. You can post whatever percentages you want. Until you bleeding hearts reach into your own pockets and fund what you think should be funded with your own money, STFU about what someone else should fund. If anyone you know or know of needs anything, write a check.

Hmm what is your opinion about all those hypocritical tea baggers on Medicare?

In case you didn't know, those using Medicare were forced to contribute to it. I am forced to contribute to Social Security. When I reach the age where I get it, although I support the ability to opt out, I will take whatever comes my way. That doesn't make me a hypocrite because I was required to be a part of it. On top of that, I'll take it whether I need it or not even if it means someone else who needs it more gets less.

So NO, like your God, Ayn Rand, you will NOT stand on principle

I stand on the principle that if I'm REQUIRED to contribute, I'll take what is returned to me. If you don't want me to take it, don't support me being forced to contribute to it. As for principles, anyone like your sorry ass that thinks someone not paying the taxes that funds the handouts they get still getting them, has not principles.

 

[Dad2three]

Inspired by Pete's asinine rant on the poor, here is the no-spin facts on SNAP (food stamps). Maybe now you will stop listening to the bullshit propaganda that comes from the Republican party. I put what I consider to be the most important facts in bold, but I do encourage you to read all of it.


SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities

(Their sources are straight from government data)

The only bullshit being spread is from people like you that think one person owes another person anything. You can post whatever percentages you want. Until you bleeding hearts reach into your own pockets and fund what you think should be funded with your own money, STFU about what someone else should fund. If anyone you know or know of needs anything, write a check.

So I don't need to pay taxes for cops? killer...

That you think the taxes that fund cops are the same taxes that fund leeches proves you're an uneducated retard.

You left out municipal golf courses for sport leeches....

It still costs to play at those courses moron. It's not free like the handouts true welfare leeches get.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Conservative65]

What are we up to now 48% of Amerika is on food stamps now? Do you see something wrong here?

Democrat's are proud so many people are getting assistance.Which is fine.People need help from time to time.My issue is the abuse.
Republicans see the amount of people on it as a bad thing in the sense that abled bodied people should be working not on assistance for years and years.

Those that truly need help are rarely noticed as they are very discreet in their use of such programs. However, those that abuse it don't seem to care who knows they're on it. Been in the grocery store many times when an EBT user buys food with their card only to purchase, in a separate transaction, things like beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets. If they can't afford to buy their own food as indicated by their applying for food stamps, they shouldn't have money to buy those other things.

Yes, ONLY if the 'poor' live REALLY poorly, should they get help *shaking head*


Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans $3 Trillion Each Year
Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans 3 Trillion Each Year

If they aren't living poorly, that means they aren't truly poor. If they can buy items such as those I listed with cash, no one needs to buy their food. That money can be used to buy food rather than those other things.

Since leeches don't pay the taxes that fund the handouts they receive, seems they avoid those taxes.

Got it, UNLESS someone lives dirt poor, like most Southern Staters, the Gov't shouldn't help them?

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation


In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala New Republic

My state is a red state but the only blue district in it drags the rest of us down.

 

[Dad2three]

Let's put it another way. 1 out of 6 people face hunger. America is not as wealthy as people would like to believe.

Weird, 1% of US have more wealth than nearly 60% of US, what do you think that means?

It means the 1% don't have taxable income.

Just magically got 'wealthy' without income huh? lol

Yeah pretty much. You know of course that your chart does not dispute my claim, right?

You serious? It does NO such thing. Tax RATES have been cut in half WHILE the top 1% has nearly 300% MORE of the pie since 1979

 

[Dad2three]

Democrat's are proud so many people are getting assistance.Which is fine.People need help from time to time.My issue is the abuse.
Republicans see the amount of people on it as a bad thing in the sense that abled bodied people should be working not on assistance for years and years.

Those that truly need help are rarely noticed as they are very discreet in their use of such programs. However, those that abuse it don't seem to care who knows they're on it. Been in the grocery store many times when an EBT user buys food with their card only to purchase, in a separate transaction, things like beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets. If they can't afford to buy their own food as indicated by their applying for food stamps, they shouldn't have money to buy those other things.

Yes, ONLY if the 'poor' live REALLY poorly, should they get help *shaking head*


Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans $3 Trillion Each Year
Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans 3 Trillion Each Year

If they aren't living poorly, that means they aren't truly poor. If they can buy items such as those I listed with cash, no one needs to buy their food. That money can be used to buy food rather than those other things.

Since leeches don't pay the taxes that fund the handouts they receive, seems they avoid those taxes.

Got it, UNLESS someone lives dirt poor, like most Southern Staters, the Gov't shouldn't help them?

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation


In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala New Republic

My state is a red state but the only blue district in it drags the rest of us down.

Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.

Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg

 

[Conservative65]

The only bullshit being spread is from people like you that think one person owes another person anything. You can post whatever percentages you want. Until you bleeding hearts reach into your own pockets and fund what you think should be funded with your own money, STFU about what someone else should fund. If anyone you know or know of needs anything, write a check.

So I don't need to pay taxes for cops? killer...

That you think the taxes that fund cops are the same taxes that fund leeches proves you're an uneducated retard.

You left out municipal golf courses for sport leeches....

It still costs to play at those courses moron. It's not free like the handouts true welfare leeches get.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Your problem is that your dumbass doesn't get that no one is entitled to another person's money. If you think any of those groups deserves another person's money, feel free to support them with yours. You won't do that because your nature is to demand someone else be forced to do it.

 

[Dad2three]

Inspired by Pete's asinine rant on the poor, here is the no-spin facts on SNAP (food stamps). Maybe now you will stop listening to the bullshit propaganda that comes from the Republican party. I put what I consider to be the most important facts in bold, but I do encourage you to read all of it.


SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities

(Their sources are straight from government data)

The only bullshit being spread is from people like you that think one person owes another person anything. You can post whatever percentages you want. Until you bleeding hearts reach into your own pockets and fund what you think should be funded with your own money, STFU about what someone else should fund. If anyone you know or know of needs anything, write a check.

Hmm what is your opinion about all those hypocritical tea baggers on Medicare?

In case you didn't know, those using Medicare were forced to contribute to it. I am forced to contribute to Social Security. When I reach the age where I get it, although I support the ability to opt out, I will take whatever comes my way. That doesn't make me a hypocrite because I was required to be a part of it. On top of that, I'll take it whether I need it or not even if it means someone else who needs it more gets less.

So NO, like your God, Ayn Rand, you will NOT stand on principle

I stand on the principle that if I'm REQUIRED to contribute, I'll take what is returned to me. If you don't want me to take it, don't support me being forced to contribute to it. As for principles, anyone like your sorry ass that thinks someone not paying the taxes that funds the handouts they get still getting them, has not principles.

Got it, typical right winger who takes greed above principles

 

[Conservative65]

Those that truly need help are rarely noticed as they are very discreet in their use of such programs. However, those that abuse it don't seem to care who knows they're on it. Been in the grocery store many times when an EBT user buys food with their card only to purchase, in a separate transaction, things like beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets. If they can't afford to buy their own food as indicated by their applying for food stamps, they shouldn't have money to buy those other things.

Yes, ONLY if the 'poor' live REALLY poorly, should they get help *shaking head*


Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans $3 Trillion Each Year
Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans 3 Trillion Each Year

If they aren't living poorly, that means they aren't truly poor. If they can buy items such as those I listed with cash, no one needs to buy their food. That money can be used to buy food rather than those other things.

Since leeches don't pay the taxes that fund the handouts they receive, seems they avoid those taxes.

Got it, UNLESS someone lives dirt poor, like most Southern Staters, the Gov't shouldn't help them?

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation


In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala New Republic

My state is a red state but the only blue district in it drags the rest of us down.

Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.

Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg

You take one area and apply it to the entire country. What percentage of voters in blue district backed Obama and fit that same bill. It applies to both.

 

[Dad2three]

So I don't need to pay taxes for cops? killer...

That you think the taxes that fund cops are the same taxes that fund leeches proves you're an uneducated retard.

You left out municipal golf courses for sport leeches....

It still costs to play at those courses moron. It's not free like the handouts true welfare leeches get.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Your problem is that your dumbass doesn't get that no one is entitled to another person's money. If you think any of those groups deserves another person's money, feel free to support them with yours. You won't do that because your nature is to demand someone else be forced to do it.

How'd the US look when we tried it YOUR way again? Oh right like a 3td world nation conservatives/libertarians are trying to take US back too!

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, ONLY if the 'poor' live REALLY poorly, should they get help *shaking head*


Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans $3 Trillion Each Year
Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans 3 Trillion Each Year

If they aren't living poorly, that means they aren't truly poor. If they can buy items such as those I listed with cash, no one needs to buy their food. That money can be used to buy food rather than those other things.

Since leeches don't pay the taxes that fund the handouts they receive, seems they avoid those taxes.

Got it, UNLESS someone lives dirt poor, like most Southern Staters, the Gov't shouldn't help them?

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation


In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala New Republic

My state is a red state but the only blue district in it drags the rest of us down.

Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.

Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg

You take one area and apply it to the entire country. What percentage of voters in blue district backed Obama and fit that same bill. It applies to both.

Weird, 81% of a district votes for Mittens, and you think that means it goes both ways? lol

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

 

[Conservative65]

The only bullshit being spread is from people like you that think one person owes another person anything. You can post whatever percentages you want. Until you bleeding hearts reach into your own pockets and fund what you think should be funded with your own money, STFU about what someone else should fund. If anyone you know or know of needs anything, write a check.

Hmm what is your opinion about all those hypocritical tea baggers on Medicare?

In case you didn't know, those using Medicare were forced to contribute to it. I am forced to contribute to Social Security. When I reach the age where I get it, although I support the ability to opt out, I will take whatever comes my way. That doesn't make me a hypocrite because I was required to be a part of it. On top of that, I'll take it whether I need it or not even if it means someone else who needs it more gets less.

So NO, like your God, Ayn Rand, you will NOT stand on principle

I stand on the principle that if I'm REQUIRED to contribute, I'll take what is returned to me. If you don't want me to take it, don't support me being forced to contribute to it. As for principles, anyone like your sorry ass that thinks someone not paying the taxes that funds the handouts they get still getting them, has not principles.

Got it, typical right winger who takes greed above principles

Typical bleeding heart that thinks the person earning what he has is less worthy of it than someone that didn't. Got it. Your problem is that someone other than the one that earned it should get it. You claim I'm greedy for what I earned working 40+ hours/week yet someone that didn't do my job getting some of it is OK. They are the greedy ones. You claim I don't care about others. Do you really think the welfare leech really cares where the money comes from as long as their sorry asses get it?