From Rags To Riches.....Or Not

[RWNJ]

No doubt a civilian federal government job has zero bang for the buck to the public... but they keep on hiring. As they have always said of a civilian federal government job - you never have to work for money its given to you, and no chance of getting fired for not working for life and Having a Conscience is strongly discouraged... lol

It all shows on the bottom line the federal government is always in the red…

You've got a point there, Rustic...

The government sort of admitted it here: The fake Department of Education, formed by Carter to get the votes of the NEA


Department of Education is, of course, unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states. So where is the impetus for its creation? Unions. The National Education Association (NEA) “In 1972, the massive union formed a political action committee…released ‘Needed: A Cabinet Department of Education’ in 1975, but its most significant step was to endorse a presidential candidate- Jimmy Carter- for the first time in the history of the organization.”
D.T. Stallngs, “A Brief History of the Department of Education: 1979-2002,” p. 3.

When formed, its budget was $13.1 billion (in 2007 dollars) and it employed 450 people. In 2010, the estimated budget is $107 billion, and there are 4,800 employees.
http://crunchycon.nationalreview.co...-department-education-not-radical/mona-charen




Now...get this:


“In November 1995, when the federal government shut down over a budget crisis, 89.4 percent of the department’s employees were deemed ‘nonessential’ and sent home.”
Beck and Balfe, “Broke,” p.304

WOW! Where is all that money going?

Thinking isn't your strong suit, is it.
The post you've linked to proves that it is wasted.


Sooo.....you're a reliable Democrat voter?

What link? I didn't post a link. You must be thinking of someone else? And my comment was sarcasm. I know where the money went, being a good Conservative.

You linked to this:
“In November 1995, when the federal government shut down over a budget crisis, 89.4 percent of the department’s employees were deemed ‘nonessential’ and sent home.”
Beck and Balfe, “Broke,” p.304

You are mistaken. I did not post that.

 

[RWNJ]

Jesus told us that the poor would always be with us. Looks like He was right. There is no cure.

The need is to define the term
The Left, Liberals/Democrats use the term as though anyone with a smaller tv screen you do is 'poor.'



Correctly used, it means "no home, no heat, no food."

Based on that, there are virtually no poor in this nation.

Then I'm guessing you have never visited a homeless shelter in a major city. In Las Vegas, there were thousands of them, waiting in the chow line. waiting for a chance to get out of the cold. There were never enough beds. Between 2.3 and 3.5 million people are homeless in America . Those are 2008 figures. It's undoubtedly worse today. I would hardly call that an insignificant number. And it's much worse in other countries.

Homeless in Las Vegas... The vast majority of them have themselves to blame on that one. I don't think it even gets cold there. Lol

It's a desert. Yeah, it gets real cold. Nevada is a land of extremes. Extreme heat. Extreme cold. It's not uncommon for the temperature to drop into the teens during the winter. And if you are implying that it's their fault for gambling, you would be mistaken. Do a little research on the causes of homeless.

What are the greatest causes of homelessness?

For persons in families, the three most commonly cited causes, according to a2008 U.S. Conference of Mayors study (pdf) are:

• Lack of affordable housing
  
• Poverty
  
• Unemployment

For singles, the three most commonly cited causes of homelessness are:

• Substance abuse
  
• Lack of affordable housing
  
• Mental illness

Hmm. I don't see gambling on that list. Do you?

Gads, what a dope.

The 'homeless' make up 0.0001562% of the population.

How about you Liberals reach into your pockets and support 'em.....?

For one, I'm not a liberal. Whatever gave you that Idea? Perhaps you should review what was said by whom, on this thread. I jumped in and asked where all that money was going for the Department of Education, then you jumped all over me. I'm on your side. Chill.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You've got a point there, Rustic...

The government sort of admitted it here: The fake Department of Education, formed by Carter to get the votes of the NEA


Department of Education is, of course, unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states. So where is the impetus for its creation? Unions. The National Education Association (NEA) “In 1972, the massive union formed a political action committee…released ‘Needed: A Cabinet Department of Education’ in 1975, but its most significant step was to endorse a presidential candidate- Jimmy Carter- for the first time in the history of the organization.”
D.T. Stallngs, “A Brief History of the Department of Education: 1979-2002,” p. 3.

When formed, its budget was $13.1 billion (in 2007 dollars) and it employed 450 people. In 2010, the estimated budget is $107 billion, and there are 4,800 employees.
http://crunchycon.nationalreview.co...-department-education-not-radical/mona-charen




Now...get this:


“In November 1995, when the federal government shut down over a budget crisis, 89.4 percent of the department’s employees were deemed ‘nonessential’ and sent home.”
Beck and Balfe, “Broke,” p.304

WOW! Where is all that money going?

Thinking isn't your strong suit, is it.
The post you've linked to proves that it is wasted.


Sooo.....you're a reliable Democrat voter?

What link? I didn't post a link. You must be thinking of someone else? And my comment was sarcasm. I know where the money went, being a good Conservative.

You linked to this:
“In November 1995, when the federal government shut down over a budget crisis, 89.4 percent of the department’s employees were deemed ‘nonessential’ and sent home.”
Beck and Balfe, “Broke,” p.304

You are mistaken. I did not post that.

I posted it...you commented on the post, saying "WOW! Where is all that money going?"

Your post came off as disputing the essence of the statement, that the vast majority are not essential.

If you mean to alter the import, do so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The need is to define the term
The Left, Liberals/Democrats use the term as though anyone with a smaller tv screen you do is 'poor.'



Correctly used, it means "no home, no heat, no food."

Based on that, there are virtually no poor in this nation.

Then I'm guessing you have never visited a homeless shelter in a major city. In Las Vegas, there were thousands of them, waiting in the chow line. waiting for a chance to get out of the cold. There were never enough beds. Between 2.3 and 3.5 million people are homeless in America . Those are 2008 figures. It's undoubtedly worse today. I would hardly call that an insignificant number. And it's much worse in other countries.

Homeless in Las Vegas... The vast majority of them have themselves to blame on that one. I don't think it even gets cold there. Lol

It's a desert. Yeah, it gets real cold. Nevada is a land of extremes. Extreme heat. Extreme cold. It's not uncommon for the temperature to drop into the teens during the winter. And if you are implying that it's their fault for gambling, you would be mistaken. Do a little research on the causes of homeless.

What are the greatest causes of homelessness?

For persons in families, the three most commonly cited causes, according to a2008 U.S. Conference of Mayors study (pdf) are:

• Lack of affordable housing
  
• Poverty
  
• Unemployment

For singles, the three most commonly cited causes of homelessness are:

• Substance abuse
  
• Lack of affordable housing
  
• Mental illness

Hmm. I don't see gambling on that list. Do you?

Gads, what a dope.

The 'homeless' make up 0.0001562% of the population.

How about you Liberals reach into your pockets and support 'em.....?

For one, I'm not a liberal. Whatever gave you that Idea? Perhaps you should review what was said by whom, on this thread. I jumped in and asked where all that money was going for the Department of Education, then you jumped all over me. I'm on your side. Chill.

This post of yours implied the very opposite:
'Then I'm guessing you have never visited a homeless shelter in a major city. In Las Vegas, there were thousands of them, waiting in the chow line. waiting for a chance to get out of the cold. There were never enough beds. Between 2.3 and 3.5 million people are homeless in America . Those are 2008 figures. It's undoubtedly worse today. I would hardly call that an insignificant number. And it's much worse in other countries.'


But I'm ready to hit the 'Reset Button.'

 

[RWNJ]

WOW! Where is all that money going?

Thinking isn't your strong suit, is it.
The post you've linked to proves that it is wasted.


Sooo.....you're a reliable Democrat voter?

What link? I didn't post a link. You must be thinking of someone else? And my comment was sarcasm. I know where the money went, being a good Conservative.

You linked to this:
“In November 1995, when the federal government shut down over a budget crisis, 89.4 percent of the department’s employees were deemed ‘nonessential’ and sent home.”
Beck and Balfe, “Broke,” p.304

You are mistaken. I did not post that.

I posted it...you commented on the post, saying "WOW! Where is all that money going?"

Your post came off as disputing the essence of the statement, that the vast majority are not essential.

If you mean to alter the import, do so.

Maybe this will help. I believe the original budget was 13 billion, for less than 500 employees. So I asked where all the money was going. That's all I said. No interpretation needed. I simply can't fathom how all that money was spent. I'm guessing it went into a black hole, or something.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The thread is based on NPR/Liberalism's view that the only way to achieve success is through the efforts of big government.

Not hard work, not an individual's decisions nor efforts.....only through appeasement of the great god, government.




The entire 33 minute NPR show can be listened to here:
Busted: America's Poverty Myths | WNYC



It actually states that success is based on luck, good fortune, and lucky breaks.....and actually claims that traditional values lower the chances of economic mobility:
The claim is made that virtue actually works counter to solving the problem of poverty.
That's right....NPR and Liberalism, Inc., actually strive for an America in which no one tries to be ethical and disciplined.


The reference is the study by Carol Stack, in her book "All Our Kin."..."This landmark study debunked the misconception that poor families were unstable and disorganized...."
"...traces the networks of kinship that poor people rely on to survive, by sharing funds and childcare, and basic goods...but those networks also impede upward mobilitybecause good fortune is expected to be shared. Your choice, then, is to severe those bonds or to distribute the fruits of your lucky break...until it's too small to make a difference."
Busted: America's Poverty Myths | WNYC


An important show....it reveals the true doctrine of Liberalism: 'you didn't build that successful business...the collective did!'

 

[RWNJ]

Then I'm guessing you have never visited a homeless shelter in a major city. In Las Vegas, there were thousands of them, waiting in the chow line. waiting for a chance to get out of the cold. There were never enough beds. Between 2.3 and 3.5 million people are homeless in America . Those are 2008 figures. It's undoubtedly worse today. I would hardly call that an insignificant number. And it's much worse in other countries.

Homeless in Las Vegas... The vast majority of them have themselves to blame on that one. I don't think it even gets cold there. Lol

It's a desert. Yeah, it gets real cold. Nevada is a land of extremes. Extreme heat. Extreme cold. It's not uncommon for the temperature to drop into the teens during the winter. And if you are implying that it's their fault for gambling, you would be mistaken. Do a little research on the causes of homeless.

What are the greatest causes of homelessness?

For persons in families, the three most commonly cited causes, according to a2008 U.S. Conference of Mayors study (pdf) are:

• Lack of affordable housing
  
• Poverty
  
• Unemployment

For singles, the three most commonly cited causes of homelessness are:

• Substance abuse
  
• Lack of affordable housing
  
• Mental illness

Hmm. I don't see gambling on that list. Do you?

Gads, what a dope.

The 'homeless' make up 0.0001562% of the population.

How about you Liberals reach into your pockets and support 'em.....?

For one, I'm not a liberal. Whatever gave you that Idea? Perhaps you should review what was said by whom, on this thread. I jumped in and asked where all that money was going for the Department of Education, then you jumped all over me. I'm on your side. Chill.

This post of yours implied the very opposite:
'Then I'm guessing you have never visited a homeless shelter in a major city. In Las Vegas, there were thousands of them, waiting in the chow line. waiting for a chance to get out of the cold. There were never enough beds. Between 2.3 and 3.5 million people are homeless in America . Those are 2008 figures. It's undoubtedly worse today. I would hardly call that an insignificant number. And it's much worse in other countries.'


But I'm ready to hit the 'Reset Button.'

There is no way to know the exact number of poor. For one thing, it depends on your definition of poor. I've been homeless in three major cities. I know what it's like out there. It's a period of my life that I'm still trying to forget. All I meant is that there are a LOT of homeless people out there. It is not an insignificant number, no matter what statistics you use. Yet the government continues to throw gobs of money at the problem, it hasn't made a dent. You can't get rid of homelessness. That's a fact. Thus my original statement. The poor will always be with us. And reset accepted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Homeless in Las Vegas... The vast majority of them have themselves to blame on that one. I don't think it even gets cold there. Lol

It's a desert. Yeah, it gets real cold. Nevada is a land of extremes. Extreme heat. Extreme cold. It's not uncommon for the temperature to drop into the teens during the winter. And if you are implying that it's their fault for gambling, you would be mistaken. Do a little research on the causes of homeless.

What are the greatest causes of homelessness?

For persons in families, the three most commonly cited causes, according to a2008 U.S. Conference of Mayors study (pdf) are:

• Lack of affordable housing
  
• Poverty
  
• Unemployment

For singles, the three most commonly cited causes of homelessness are:

• Substance abuse
  
• Lack of affordable housing
  
• Mental illness

Hmm. I don't see gambling on that list. Do you?

Gads, what a dope.

The 'homeless' make up 0.0001562% of the population.

How about you Liberals reach into your pockets and support 'em.....?

For one, I'm not a liberal. Whatever gave you that Idea? Perhaps you should review what was said by whom, on this thread. I jumped in and asked where all that money was going for the Department of Education, then you jumped all over me. I'm on your side. Chill.

This post of yours implied the very opposite:
'Then I'm guessing you have never visited a homeless shelter in a major city. In Las Vegas, there were thousands of them, waiting in the chow line. waiting for a chance to get out of the cold. There were never enough beds. Between 2.3 and 3.5 million people are homeless in America . Those are 2008 figures. It's undoubtedly worse today. I would hardly call that an insignificant number. And it's much worse in other countries.'


But I'm ready to hit the 'Reset Button.'

There is no way to know the exact number of poor. For one thing, it depends on your definition of poor. I've been homeless in three major cities. I know what it's like out there. It's a period of my life that I'm still trying to forget. All I meant is that there are a LOT of homeless people out there. It is not an insignificant number, no matter what statistics you use. Yet the government continues to throw gobs of money at the problem, it hasn't made a dent. You can't get rid of homelessness. That's a fact. Thus my original statement. The poor will always be with us. And reset accepted.

I informed you of the correct usage of 'poor:' no home, no heat, no food.

Hence, the number approaches zero in the United States.


Or....do you know how the government comes up with its bogus definition?

 

[RWNJ]

The thread is based on NPR/Liberalism's view that the only way to achieve success is through the efforts of big government.

Not hard work, not an individual's decisions nor efforts.....only through appeasement of the great god, government.




The entire 33 minute NPR show can be listened to here:
Busted: America's Poverty Myths | WNYC



It actually states that success is based on luck, good fortune, and lucky breaks.....and actually claims that traditional values lower the chances of economic mobility:
The claim is made that virtue actually works counter to solving the problem of poverty.
That's right....NPR and Liberalism, Inc., actually strive for an America in which no one tries to be ethical and disciplined.


The reference is the study by Carol Stack, in her book "All Our Kin."..."This landmark study debunked the misconception that poor families were unstable and disorganized...."
"...traces the networks of kinship that poor people rely on to survive, by sharing funds and childcare, and basic goods...but those networks also impede upward mobilitybecause good fortune is expected to be shared. Your choice, then, is to severe those bonds or to distribute the fruits of your lucky break...until it's too small to make a difference."
Busted: America's Poverty Myths | WNYC


An important show....it reveals the true doctrine of Liberalism: 'you didn't build that successful business...the collective did!'

Well, I didn't read the whole thing, or watch the video. Thanks for clearing that up. I was just looking for figures. No one can break out of poverty unless they are motivated to do so. Government handouts motivate no one. Just the opposite, in fact. Generational poverty. Which is exactly what some in power want. A prosperous society is harder to take over than a poor one, after all.

 

[RWNJ]

It's a desert. Yeah, it gets real cold. Nevada is a land of extremes. Extreme heat. Extreme cold. It's not uncommon for the temperature to drop into the teens during the winter. And if you are implying that it's their fault for gambling, you would be mistaken. Do a little research on the causes of homeless.

What are the greatest causes of homelessness?

For persons in families, the three most commonly cited causes, according to a2008 U.S. Conference of Mayors study (pdf) are:

• Lack of affordable housing
  
• Poverty
  
• Unemployment

For singles, the three most commonly cited causes of homelessness are:

• Substance abuse
  
• Lack of affordable housing
  
• Mental illness

Hmm. I don't see gambling on that list. Do you?

Gads, what a dope.

The 'homeless' make up 0.0001562% of the population.

How about you Liberals reach into your pockets and support 'em.....?

For one, I'm not a liberal. Whatever gave you that Idea? Perhaps you should review what was said by whom, on this thread. I jumped in and asked where all that money was going for the Department of Education, then you jumped all over me. I'm on your side. Chill.

This post of yours implied the very opposite:
'Then I'm guessing you have never visited a homeless shelter in a major city. In Las Vegas, there were thousands of them, waiting in the chow line. waiting for a chance to get out of the cold. There were never enough beds. Between 2.3 and 3.5 million people are homeless in America . Those are 2008 figures. It's undoubtedly worse today. I would hardly call that an insignificant number. And it's much worse in other countries.'


But I'm ready to hit the 'Reset Button.'

There is no way to know the exact number of poor. For one thing, it depends on your definition of poor. I've been homeless in three major cities. I know what it's like out there. It's a period of my life that I'm still trying to forget. All I meant is that there are a LOT of homeless people out there. It is not an insignificant number, no matter what statistics you use. Yet the government continues to throw gobs of money at the problem, it hasn't made a dent. You can't get rid of homelessness. That's a fact. Thus my original statement. The poor will always be with us. And reset accepted.

I informed you of the correct usage of 'poor:' no home, no heat, no food.

Hence, the number approaches zero in the United States.


Or....do you know how the government comes up with its bogus definition?

I don't know who to believe, as far as figures go. All I know is that I lived that life. I'm speaking from personal experience. There are a LOT of homeless people out there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The government $1 trillion/year is not designed to end poverty.
It is evident in the fact that the 'poverty rate' is almost the same now as when LBJ claimed a 'war on poverty.'
It is a a bribe.

Over 80% of recipients vote Democrat.

 

[RWNJ]

The government $1 trillion/year is not designed to end poverty.
It is evident in the fact that the 'poverty rate' is almost the same now as when LBJ claimed a 'war on poverty.'
It is a a bribe.

Over 80% of recipients vote Democrat.

You got that right. Always follow the money...err...the votes? Whatever. Politics as usual.

Politics: Noun. From the Greek polys, meaning many, and tics...blood sucking parasites.

Enough said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"To the contrary, the most common length of time that someone is homeless is one or two days, and half the people who enter the homeless shelter system will leave within 30 days, never to return.
...on any given day, only about 112,000 people fit the federal definition of "chronic homelessness," which applies to those who have been continuously homeless for a year or more, or are experiencing at least their fourth episode of homelessness in three years.

Five myths about America's homeless

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here is the misuse of the term 'poor' by this government:

"...46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/221932/poor-politics/robert-rector

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
a. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).
i. Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.
ii. Bradley Foundation, $623 million.
b. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.
i. Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.
ii. Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.
iii. The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.


2. With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
a. “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” Washingtonpost.com: Scaife: Funding Father of the Right

Check out “The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin



Koch Brothers????
Really?

3. " The brothers that liberals like to hate are often trotted out as prime examples of why campaign finance reform is necessary. They are often portrayed as one of the biggest contributors to political candidates, their evil money financing evil Republicans...... OpenSecrets.org tallied the top donors in federal elections between 1989 and 2014. Koch Industries ;;;; doesn't appear until the 59th slot,...

a. Six ofthe top 10 are ... wait for it ... unions. They gave more than $278 million, with most of it going to Democrats. These are familiar names: AFSCME ($60.6 million), NEA ($53.5 million), IBEW ($44.4 million), UAW ($41.6 million), Carpenters & Joiners ($39.2 million) and SEIU ($38.3 million).

4. ....the Koch brothers also contribute tens of millions of dolalrs to the GOP cause indirectly through their indpendent committees Americans for Prosperity and others. Also to be fair, I should point out that unions spent a half a billion dollars in such indirect spending in the 2012 election cycle.

5. So, if money is the measure of evil in American politics and the Evil Koch Bros only come in 59th, who is really the most evil donor ever?

Turns out it's Act Blue, with just short of $100 million in contributions during its lifetime, which only started in 2004, 15 years after the Evil Koch Bros in the OpenSecrets.org compilation." Blog: 'Evil' Koch brothers just 59th on top political donation list

The Kochs announced early last year that they had $889,000,000 between the two of them, two individuals, to play with for this election. Why don't you state ALL the facts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/u...-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?_r=0

1. David and Charles Koch each own 42 percent of closely held Wichita, Kansas-based Koch Industries, have a combined net worth of $70.8 billion, and are the seventh and eighth richest people in the world, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires index.
2. The Koch brothers have become synonymous with outside spending in politics in part becauseDavid Koch is head of Americans for Prosperity, which has helped fuel the Tea Party movement that seeks smaller government. Americans for Prosperity is a nonprofit group that isn’t required to disclose its donors and legally can’t spend more than 50 percent of its budget on elections. It has spent more than $6 million on television ads attacking Obama, and recently announced a $9 million ad campaign against the president’s health-care law.
   1. http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nat...iser-for-romney-draws-protest-in-ny-1.3826383

- Soros has given away over $7 billion to “support human rights, freedom of expression, and access to public health and education in 70 countries.”

- Up to $425 million donated annually



In your face....again...dunce.

And the Kochs were going to give a billion to the GOP...until Trump. The whole GOP depends on big money. That's how they keep their bought off politicians in line...Soros gives most of his money outside the country. DUH.

You need to see this AGAIN????
- Soros has given away over $7 billion to “support human rights, freedom of expression, and access to public health and education in 70 countries.”

Yup, a great man, dupe.

"Yup, [Soros] a great man, dupe"

‘MAKE SOROS HAPPY’: CLINTON CAMPAIGN DISCUSSES IMPORTANCE OF PLEASING BILLIONAIRE IN LEAKED EMAIL
‘Make Soros Happy’: Clinton Campaign Discusses Importance of Pleasing Billionaire in Leaked Email


Bow to Soros....
Anti-capitalism, anti-sovereignty......the stance of the Democrat Party.

 

[RWNJ]

Here is the misuse of the term 'poor' by this government:

"...46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/221932/poor-politics/robert-rector

Well damn! I wish I was that poor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here is the misuse of the term 'poor' by this government:

"...46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/221932/poor-politics/robert-rector

Well damn! I wish I was that poor.

Wait...it gets worse:

1. The 'poor' have more spendable money than many who work for a living, and support socialist expenditures:

"In 2012, the Heritage Foundation estimated how much assistance the average welfare recipient received. It found that on average, Americans who depend on federal assistance got the equivalent of $32,748 in annual benefits. That was more than the average American worker makes in a year. The median net wage in America in 2013 was $28,031."Dependent - theTrumpet.com

Startin' to feel like a sucker?




2. “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 it we merely explained what has become the painful reality in America: for increasingly more it is now more lucrative – in the form of actual disposable income – to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work.

This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantified and explained by Alexander, “the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.“
Poverty pays better than middle-class employment Human Events


a. You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

WITH WELFARE IT MAKES SENSE TO WORK LESS,”
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year. If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.
http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/u..._With-welfare-it-makes-sense-to-work-less.pdf


From Emmerich:

You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

My chart tells the story. It is pretty much self-explanatory.

Think politicians don't know this?

Welfare is simply a bribe given for the 'poor's' vote.

 

[RWNJ]

Here is the misuse of the term 'poor' by this government:

"...46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/221932/poor-politics/robert-rector

Well damn! I wish I was that poor.

Wait...it gets worse:

1. The 'poor' have more spendable money than many who work for a living, and support socialist expenditures:

"In 2012, the Heritage Foundation estimated how much assistance the average welfare recipient received. It found that on average, Americans who depend on federal assistance got the equivalent of $32,748 in annual benefits. That was more than the average American worker makes in a year. The median net wage in America in 2013 was $28,031."Dependent - theTrumpet.com

Startin' to feel like a sucker?




2. “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 it we merely explained what has become the painful reality in America: for increasingly more it is now more lucrative – in the form of actual disposable income – to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work.

This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantified and explained by Alexander, “the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.“
Poverty pays better than middle-class employment Human Events


a. You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

WITH WELFARE IT MAKES SENSE TO WORK LESS,”
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year. If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.
http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/u..._With-welfare-it-makes-sense-to-work-less.pdf


From Emmerich:

You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

My chart tells the story. It is pretty much self-explanatory.

Think politicians don't know this?

Welfare is simply a bribe given for the 'poor's' vote.

The whole time I was homeless, I wasn't getting anything. I supported myself by donating plasma twice a week. That was good for about 50 dollars a week,and day labor....when they had anything for me. Between that and all the soup lines and other charitable stuff, I squeaked by. But it's still something I would not want to go through again.

 

[Rustic]

Homeless in Las Vegas... The vast majority of them have themselves to blame on that one. I don't think it even gets cold there. Lol

It's a desert. Yeah, it gets real cold. Nevada is a land of extremes. Extreme heat. Extreme cold. It's not uncommon for the temperature to drop into the teens during the winter. And if you are implying that it's their fault for gambling, you would be mistaken. Do a little research on the causes of homeless.

What are the greatest causes of homelessness?

For persons in families, the three most commonly cited causes, according to a2008 U.S. Conference of Mayors study (pdf) are:

• Lack of affordable housing
  
• Poverty
  
• Unemployment

For singles, the three most commonly cited causes of homelessness are:

• Substance abuse
  
• Lack of affordable housing
  
• Mental illness

Hmm. I don't see gambling on that list. Do you?

Gads, what a dope.

The 'homeless' make up 0.0001562% of the population.

How about you Liberals reach into your pockets and support 'em.....?

For one, I'm not a liberal. Whatever gave you that Idea? Perhaps you should review what was said by whom, on this thread. I jumped in and asked where all that money was going for the Department of Education, then you jumped all over me. I'm on your side. Chill.

This post of yours implied the very opposite:
'Then I'm guessing you have never visited a homeless shelter in a major city. In Las Vegas, there were thousands of them, waiting in the chow line. waiting for a chance to get out of the cold. There were never enough beds. Between 2.3 and 3.5 million people are homeless in America . Those are 2008 figures. It's undoubtedly worse today. I would hardly call that an insignificant number. And it's much worse in other countries.'


But I'm ready to hit the 'Reset Button.'

There is no way to know the exact number of poor. For one thing, it depends on your definition of poor. I've been homeless in three major cities. I know what it's like out there. It's a period of my life that I'm still trying to forget. All I meant is that there are a LOT of homeless people out there. It is not an insignificant number, no matter what statistics you use. Yet the government continues to throw gobs of money at the problem, it hasn't made a dent. You can't get rid of homelessness. That's a fact. Thus my original statement. The poor will always be with us. And reset accepted.

Progressive career politicians want the poor to stay poor, then they have a consistent voting block. Fact

 

[francoHFW]

Here is the misuse of the term 'poor' by this government:

"...46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/221932/poor-politics/robert-rector

Well damn! I wish I was that poor.

Wait...it gets worse:

1. The 'poor' have more spendable money than many who work for a living, and support socialist expenditures:

"In 2012, the Heritage Foundation estimated how much assistance the average welfare recipient received. It found that on average, Americans who depend on federal assistance got the equivalent of $32,748 in annual benefits. That was more than the average American worker makes in a year. The median net wage in America in 2013 was $28,031."Dependent - theTrumpet.com

Startin' to feel like a sucker?




2. “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 it we merely explained what has become the painful reality in America: for increasingly more it is now more lucrative – in the form of actual disposable income – to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work.

This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantified and explained by Alexander, “the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.“
Poverty pays better than middle-class employment Human Events


a. You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

WITH WELFARE IT MAKES SENSE TO WORK LESS,”
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year. If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.
http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/u..._With-welfare-it-makes-sense-to-work-less.pdf


From Emmerich:

You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

My chart tells the story. It is pretty much self-explanatory.

Think politicians don't know this?

Welfare is simply a bribe given for the 'poor's' vote.

Nobody wants to be on welfare, stupid- it's for corrupt GOP depressions. Unless you're disabled, most places you have to work menial bs for benefits, look for work, get screened for drugs etc, get counseling etc etc.