welfare vs wages

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...ing_press.html

[b]Representative Stephen Fincher, Republican of Tennessee, explains why the government needs to reduce spending on the Supplemental Nutrional Assistance Program that provides food to poor families:

Here in Tennessee, Mr. Fincher embraces that view. “We have to remember there is not a big printing press in Washington that continually prints money over and over,” he said in May.[/B]


and yet....


Mr. Fincher, who was elected in 2010 on a Tea Party wave and collected nearly $3.5 million in farm subsidies from the government from 1999 to 2012, recently voted for a farm bill that omitted food stamps.


so, fincher, who is well to do, should be subsidized by tax payers....but a poor person who needs food? well, that's just too g**da** bad, isn't it?


The problem with Fincher isn't that he's scooped up farm subsidies, it's that the appropriations bill he's votes for continues to direct huge subsidies to rich farmers like himself even even while he preaches the evils of government spending to support the poor.

[dellinger63]

If minimum wage should be adjusted because of rising costs of living shouldn't the minimum retirement age be raised because of rising average lifespans?

Sure could give the budget a huge break if we went from 65 to 75 or even 70. After all it was this group that had all those middle class jobs and surely they were wise enough to save.

[Danzig]

saw this in todays paper...

http://www.gocomics.com/nickanderson/2013/09/24

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

saw this in todays paper...

http://www.gocomics.com/nickanderson/2013/09/24

I call that and raise you this one

[dellinger63]

'Currently, 47 million Americans benefit from SNAP, but that number is expected to be greatly reduced once the economy recovers.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wa...b_3956677.html

Some things just don't pass the smell taste.

Since '08, 18.38 million were added to the program. So if the author is correct in his expectations the economy has not recovered and in fact has gotten worse over the past five years. And if there's any correlation between the percentage of the rise in food stamp recipients and the economy it may be as high as 38% worse.

Cutting 4 million or 21% of those added since '08 may just be prudent pruning. Seems to me if the economy has improved and I certainly think it has since '08 the number cut should be more along the lines of 18 million.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wa...b_3956677.html

Some things just don't pass the smell taste.

Since '08, 18.38 million were added to the program. So if the author is correct in his expectations the economy has not recovered and in fact has gotten worse over the past five years. And if there's any correlation between the percentage of the rise in food stamp recipients and the economy it may be as high as 38% worse.

Cutting 4 million or 21% of those added since '08 may just be prudent pruning. Seems to me if the economy has improved and I certainly think it has since '08 the number cut should be more along the lines of 18 million.

I think in the last 5 years you have people that have seen the Richest of the Rich get rewarded with bailouts while their situation stayed the same or got worse. I think a lot of folks today simply are saying wtf I will get every handout possible. Look at Americas biggest growth industry, disability claims. They are sky-rocketing. We have lost our way and it starts from the very top. Our congressional leadership.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

I think in the last 5 years you have people that have seen the Richest of the Rich get rewarded with bailouts while their situation stayed the same or got worse. I think a lot of folks today simply are saying wtf I will get every handout possible. Look at Americas biggest growth industry, disability claims. They are sky-rocketing. We have lost our way and it starts from the very top. Our congressional NON leadership.

ftfy

yes, it's hard to say 'try hard and work hard' when we see corruption and fraud get rewarded, constantly.
then there's the congressman who recently whined how he's 'stuck' in d.c., making over 170k a year. poor little fella. that's over three times the average yearly salary per household.

[GenuineRisk]

The majority of those who receive SNAP benefits are the elderly and children. Which of them would you cut in your "pruning," Dell? The elderly or the children? Or maybe the disabled? Between those three, that's 83 percent of households receiving benefits.

SNAP has less fraud and waste in it than Medicare. How about we cut Medicare instead, and let old people fend for themselves so the rich doctors defrauding Medicare get their just desserts?

Here are a couple of stats about SNAP. More at the link; well worth reading to understand the program a bit:

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

http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fig...realities.aspx

But much better to keep farm subsidies going to millionaires who get paid because their rich dad died and left them fallow farmland than to feed poor kids.