The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Forget politics for a moment. Forget Romney and Obama even exist let alone if they are doing the right or wrong things. Take an honest look at what is going on in America and decide if there may be some truth to this?

Democrats  ... can you honestly say that we are not encouraging people to "settle" for the minimum.

Republicans ... can you honestly say that we are "creating" a class of people that see no reason to work?

Why or why not?

As a Democrat I think we have done too much for some people, to the point where they expect the government to take care of them.  It has become generational.  On the other hand we can't just cut everyone off as the Republicans would like to do.  Change will take time.  I just read an article in my local paper today that our county Dept of Social Services makes the first priority of everybody seeking assistance to put them on the road to finding meaningful employment.  Difficult to do in this economic environment, but this should be done everywhere.

Outside of politics, I think there is a segment of people who are freeloaders (not nearly 47% and Mr. Romney claims - probably more like 2 or 3%).  With section 8 housing, welfare for their 12 kids, food stamps, medicare, unemployment...  Why should they work when they can sit at home and not worry?

I think people should have to earn these programs.  To get unemployment, you have to demonstrate that you are actively searching for a job.  People in other programs should have to work for it as well.  They should have to go pick up trash off the side of the highway or do menial tasks no one else wants to do to earn their free ride.  No worky, no check.

Of course, its better in theory - not sure if it would actually work.

Baby Republican here (changed 2 yrs. ago)

Yes, despite evidence that shows people are happier when the have self fulfillment by contributing to society and experiencing personal achievement, sadly the new culture being implemented by our current administration encourages government dependence.

Case in point....

There is no shame in handouts. Remeber being in the grocery store line and seeing someone using food stamps? Most felt at least some shame. No more...Today, a new program called SNAP proudly endorsed by Obama makes using "government funding" so discreet that most people will never even notice. It looks just like a credit card. Hell, the Dems are so proud of it, they actually were using taxpayer money to advertise it.

Get your barf bag ready!

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpqHZ2YxD4w&feature=related 

 

2-3% freeloaders and fraud in the food stamp program ? Are you outta your damn mind ? I would venture to say that close to half (50%) of food stamp recipients are freeloaders and/or fraudulent. I personally know a guy that was getting food stamps in 2 states at once. I have seen on several occasions, people go into stores and buy a buggy load of luxury type food that I can't afford to buy and get into their Lincoln/Cadillac/Luxury SUV more times than I would like to remember.  See your idea is a pretty good one. Get them off their ass and make them work for their entitlements. I guarantee that the Dems would fight it tooth and nail and cry like a bunch of sissys. Furthermore, I don't see why some people don't think that people on entitlements shouldn't have monthly drug tests attached to it. How in the fuck could anyone argue with that makes no sense to me. But then again people arguing with voter ID makes no sense to me either.......


I find it kind of ironic that some of the most food stamp dependent states are the most obese states in the country. If someone needs food stamps they need basic food. Nothing special, nothing fancy, nothing to be picky about. Just food to live on until they do something for themselves. The food stamp program should have a strict and very limited list of foods allowed to be purchased. Just the basics, fruits, vegetables, some starches, and certain proteins. No sugary foods, no junk foods, no sweets at all, none of it. Hell for that matter no drinks of any type. Drink tap water. The human body needs food and water. Why should anything but the basic nutritional needs be provided for free. If it's not painful and unpleasant, where is the motivation to get off of the program. Kinda sad what this country is becoming.

Anyone caught defrauding the system should be ineligible from the program for life. Plenty of this shit going on, see below.....

(http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p14/badger6/foodstamp_zps60a7af15.jpg)

Short answer: no.

I totally agree.  To get my job, I had to take a drug test as well as several other types of tests/background checks.  They take money out of each paycheck to help fund the programs that give people welfare.  Why should I have to take a drug test to work to support your drug habits?



I gotta agree here as well.  Maybe milk and all natural juices should be included because they are nutritional beverages.  But no soda, kool aid, sweet tea, bottled water, none of that. 


Holy Mary, mother of God!!!!!!!  :o :o :o

Let us dispense with the broad platitudes about "dependency classes" and talk specifics.

The overwhelming majority of people on government assistance fall into one of the following three categories:

1) elderly/retired
2) disabled
3) families with children

So, how should we go about reducing this unsightly dependency class?

Should the elderly, who have paid into SS/Medicare for their entire working lives, be taken off of this distasteful government dole and told that retirement is a luxury above their station?
Should the disabled be freed from the shackles of government dependence and left to sink or swim?
Perhaps children need to spend less time in their free, government-provided public schools and spend more time working to pay this month's rent?

See, the thing about the America you want is: we already had it 100 years ago.  We didn't have oppressive government programs like Social Security and Medicare.  We weren't held hostage by intrusive government regulations prohibiting industrial waste dumping in lakes and parks.  And the people who had to suffer through that version of America rejected it in favor of the government we have now.

Today, you have people who have lived their whole life in a world where every citizen over 65 has free healthcare, and where the middle class can actually retire instead of literally working to death.  And much like the dead-enders who reject vaccines, they want to undo the hard fought benefits earned by their predecessors and go back to their presumed ideal of survival of the fittest.

Sorry, I reject your premise.  If I wanted to be in a nation free of the insidious spectre of being-able-to-afford-retirement, or a complete-destruction-of-economic-mobility, I'd move to Somalia.

Based on your response, its clear to me now that you didn't read my post, and only want to spew your agenda, so having logical conversations with you on this topic is unlikely.

I remember FL. pushing for drug tests for welfare recipients and I am pretty sure they found out that people that failed the test was incredibly low...something like 3%. Bottom line was that the drug testing program cost more to implement and maintain than it was worth. Anyone else remember that???

I understand your point and agree on needing an ID to vote. Like others have said. If you don't have an ID, you got bigger problems than not being able to vote. lol

I do remember that. I'm glad you being conservative were the one pointing it out.

I have seen it a lot myself but I did not make assumptions on how they were paying.

I believe in a strong safety net.
I believe in a strong middle class. -- Both of these help America, as a whole.

With any safety net, there will be abuse.  I think you try and stop that where you can, but not at the cost of limiting those that really need it.  It's simply anecdotal data, but I have seen, firsthand, educated, hard-working friends have to rely on that safety net.  They were ashamed and never thought it would be them.  But when you have bills and a family and all of a sudden no job because of downsizing, they depend on that system to get back on their feet.

So, dependency class?  No.  Not at all.

When you look at the kinds of breaks we give to corporations, things like Welfare pale in comparison.  And the whole idea of the young buck waiting for his food stamps is a myth.  Some exist, I'm sure, but like Spider says, the majority of the people on those programs are things like elderly, the very poor, and the disabled.

Dave, I would just like to point out that even among the poor, the vast majority of assistance goes to poor families with children.  If you think there are single childless poor people living high on the hog through government handouts, you're mistaken.

Your assessment of "high on the hog" is the problem. I could spend a week on my family alone but I have three healthy nieces that have 9 or 10 kids. I an't keep up. None of them are married nor are they working  but they all get by and none of them seem to want to get out.

On the other hand I have another niece and nephew, raised under the same conditions, who have chosen to get out of their earlier bad choices and are doing great. 

This is one of the reasons I have found myself moving over to Republicans. I am all for helping but am over enabling people including family. I've not only observed but have lived allowing people to hit rock bottom. giving handouts doesn't allow for this and as such,people continue doing as they always have.

As you just said, they have children.  Lots of them.

The assistance they receive is not because our society has determined that they deserve to be lazy.  It is because our society believes that children should be afforded as many opportunities to extract themselves from poverty as possible, and part of that is making sure that their parents are able to keep a roof over their head and food in their stomach.  I assure you that if/when your nieces no longer have children to support, their livelihood will not be nearly so comfortable.  (But then again, conservatives endorse all kinds of legislation to keep low-income women pregnant, so this might be an unlikely prospect.)

One of the favorite catchphrases of the right is, "Equality of opportunity, not equality of results."  If it is your opinion that children of the poor should be spending less time in school getting an education and more time working in the fields to contribute to this month's rent and groceries, that's fine; we can eliminate the extra welfare assistance for families with children, repeal child labor laws, and call it a day.  But again, we already tried that system 100 years ago, and we didn't like it.

I did read your post. Furthermore, I went back and reread your post. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you were saying. So pretty please with sugar on top, clarify to me what you were trying to convey in your post.

So we have an example of someone buying lobster with food stamps. 

Holy cow! Lets shut down the foodstamp program because this is proof positive EVERY SINGLE recipient of foodstamps abuse it. 

By this logic we should also end ALL military spending because the abuse of over charging the military is considerably worse than than foodstamp abuse.

Also every doctor should be banned from practicing medicine and every hospital should be closed because overbilling of medicine is also much more prevelant than food stamp abuse.


 

Just an example of a rampant problem of what's going on with the entitlement crowd. At work on a weekly basis I hear certain people bragging about selling their benefits to people for cash. No telling how many times I have heard it.

Ha, ha, ha, who said any of that ? So dramatic, don't shit your pants over it.......

Where the fuck do you work that there are numerous people on benefits?

A major US corporation. Don't ask me how the hell they get benefits ? I guess it's easy to get them or whoever is responsible doesn't follow up on the requirements and qualifications for receiving them. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't get any. Now that I think about it, free groceries would be nice, but I don't really need them nor do I want them.

That's all cute in black and white but the reality is there is no incentive to change. The aren't living high and mighty by most standards but they get very cheap housing and get to watch Jerry Springer and Oprah every day while "living it up" with whomever. Many of the the low income areas are full of people just like this. Yes I've basically lived in the projects. You have two types of people and very few in the middle. they either want to get out or are content to stay.

We have to find another way. To address this. Like someone said ... you get benefits then you spend X number of hours working for Goodwill, Salvation Army or picking up trash. There is no reson that healthy people are not contributing to society in some way. If you refuse to do that then lose your kids because not supporting your kids is a form of child neglect. 

as far as the drug testing the it was expensive numbers are skewed. It doesn't take into account all the people who dropped from the program because they knew they would fail.

 .... from the Sun Sentinel

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-09-13/news/fl-aclu-drug-testing-20120913_1_welfare-applicants-maria-kayanan-floridas-drug

.

This means out of 6,350 people we ended up having to pay benefits for 3,936 people.  That almost a 40% decrease. How is that not saving money or encouraging people to step up? In fact I'd argue it was more important to get people to be accountable than to save money.

Sounds like either someone's not doing their job, or there's a loophole in the system.  Instead of just eliminating the entire system, why not just fix the loophole?

Badger, your receipt reminds me of an experience I had at a grocery store.

I was behind a woman in line and when she went to pay with food stamps the cashier politely told her she could not accept the stamps for dog food. The woman threw a fit, shouted obscenities and then said, "well, I will just go get him a T Bone!!!"

At that point she left all her groceries and headed to the meat department. We were all stunned and speechless.   

Whoever said that welfare should pay for basic food to survive and not lobster and prime rib.....I COULD NOT AGREE MORE!

This pretty much enhances badger's point.  If you're on food stamps, you shouldn't be having a pet.  You should also make those food stamps stretch as far as possible.  Buy ground beef and chicken drumsticks as opposed to lobster and prime rib.

About a year ago I was in a local grocery store waiting in line behind a nicely dressed man using food stamps to pay for his stuff. Didn't pay attention to what he was buying, as I really didn't care. I only had like 3 items so I was through the line pretty quick as I was walking out to my truck I see this gentleman get into a brand new BMW and drive away. If you can afford a brand new BMW why the fuck are you on food stamps. I was furious but what the hell could I do about it.....nothing really.

^ I don't know about the situation above, but here's how something like that happens:  My friends.

My friends have a nice, middle class lifestyle, a nice car, a house -- they had nice things.  So, when downsized and out of work, they still own those things, but all of a sudden, they don't have enough money to float their bills.  So, they cut back on new purchases, but have food stamps to float them until their situation is more stable.  ...and why not, they've paid into the program their whole lives.

So, if you saw my friends, dressed nicely, well-groomed, rolling up in a nice car and using food stamps, it'd probably piss you off.

But you don't know their situation, just as you don't know the situation of the guy with the BMW.

I understand you sentiment (and somewhat agree),but think it's good ideology,not practical,no where near realistic..You can argue,and quote whatever you want...This all I'm going to say about it...

If you took all those people that are able bodied people on welfare...
Where are they going to work,these are the people the Salvation army helps,they don't have enough need with that many extra volunteers..They need more donations,money...Suddenly giving them tons of labor...

While some of those people's kids are old enough to go to school...So they can volunteer,work for their welfare from 7-3 Monday through Friday while School is in session.Then during the Summer,you have the same problem as the people with small children...Childcare...

All those people with small children, will need more childcare facilities,to "work for their welfare". Those people can't afford child care costs,So the government has to supply more...So they can "pay for their Welfare"

How are you going to get these people to "work" to So they can "work for their Welfare"? Here the Public transportation is a joke,we have a bus system.

Who's going to assign these jobs? Create another government agency? Who's going to go check that these people are "working for their Welfare"? What's the Penalty for not going to "work for your Welfare"? Jail? taking away their welfare? Now you add to a homeless problem...You even mentioned taking their kids away,That makes them wards of the state,and causes more problems...

I understand you hate people taking advantage of the system,complacency of being on welfare...You're creating a bigger horrible government mess,More spending to fix  a narrow problem...IMO...It's all great in theory and may work on a very small scale..In reality it's not going to work...

I already see everyone's retort..(Damn I'm arguing with myself again  :D) But at least it's not giving up...It's trying....It's trying to change the system to make it better,get people off of welfare.....

It's people,just like you said about unions...

It's easy to come up with solutions,and getting mad about the problems when we're sitting here typing on our keyboards...Putting these ideas into action...Is a whole other thing,that's not so simple...

How would you know they're on food stamps? Arizona uses a card.

LOL, yup! I read not to long ago about a woman who was on food stamps even though she had won over 250K in a state lottery. Last I heard she claimed it was not income and was fighting losing her stamps. GOOD GRIEF!

^^^I see what you are saying Dave but in all honesty you don't know his situation either. He just as easily could be a worthless piece of shit that mooches off the government. I have no doubt that that things happen like the situation you described, but for everyone of those there are people abusing it too.


I have no idea what Arizona uses as I have never used them. I saw them with my own two eyes and I was appalled it's something I will never forget.

Yes, and their children get to eat every day and have a roof over their head.

Listen, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the idea you're talking about, but let's not sugarcoat it.  In order to "fix" this problem, one or more of the following needs to happen:

- our society has to be willing to allow low-income children to starve and/or be homeless
- our government needs to be willing to remove starving/homeless children from their parents' custody (and be willing to fund foster care for them)
- our government has to be willing to take more serious steps towards preventing people from having children that they cannot afford to raise

So which of the above do you support?  Because absent the above options, all the talk about people abusing the system is just that: talk.  If you aren't ready to see starving, homeless children on the street, then you can't reduce the government assistance to low-income parents below the point where they can stay at home without working.

Furthermore, as Lil B said, the cost of child care makes the prospect of working just to pay the child care costs that you have incurred by going to work somewhat counterproductive, particularly when conservatives will then turn around and say, "This person is making $xxxx per month, and gets the same benefits as a person who isn't working at all!"  I mean, if that's your goal, why not have the government "hire" one group of welfare recipients to dig holes, and another group to fill them in?  It accomplishes the same thing.

Are you saying that you are in favor of the government taking your kids if you are too poor?  Should we spend more on foster care for poor children than we would assisting their families?

I don't think this is true.  I'm sure there are people that abuse the system, but I think that the majority of those that use assistance need it.  There's no reason to assume otherwise.  There is no data to support that as many people are scamming as those that need it.

Look, I'm all for reducing dependency.  ...all for it.  I want the same things you do.  But how do you do that, without hurting those that are doing the right thing, but have fallen on hard times?

Dave, if your friend was struggling, why couldn't they sell their fancy car and buy a beater and use the profit to float them for a while?  When you hit rough times, sometimes we have to sacrifice things we want in favor of things we need.

In response to both. If you want to fix the system you have to make people not want to be on the system without pulling the plug on people that need to eat. The way to do that is to make the system as uncomfortable as possible to be on. Limit what can be bought when receiving benefits. Fruits, vegetables, rice, beans, no meat except plain raw chicken or ground beef. No drinks except milk. No junk food, cereal, pre cooked convenience foods. Only foods that you have to cook and prepare, no tv dinners or frozen pizzas. These jokers have all day to sit around and do nothing. Let them learn to cook for themselves from a list of only 30 allowed items. That would get old quick and separate the freeloaders and scam artists from the people that just need basic nutrition to survive. The people that just need to eat would still be taken care of and that's what it's all about. Isn't it ? If I was one of those people I would be thankful even though the menu might not be to my liking. Being a person that somewhat works out and tries to keep in shape at least half the year, I have(choose to) to eat shit that I don't really want to eat a lot of the time. Supposedly, the states with the most obese people are the states with the highest food stamp recipients, that illustrates a serious problem.

And perhaps they can.  This stuff sneaks up on you quickly.  Also, perhaps they can't get fair market value and would be taking a considerable net loss on the vehicle, further damaging their long term prospects.  Or perhaps they are upside down on the vehicle and the amount they owe is more than they can sell it for.

I don't really know.  But I know they aren't deadbeats looking for a handout.

Two things: 1. If you've never used  food stamps, how do you know that's what they were? 2. I just double checked and AZ uses cards. They have for years.

Funny since those are also the states that vote Republican.

Well I will agree to disagree then because I think there are a ton of people who like to abuse the system and take any handout they can get. I hear the horror stories all the time but either way it is just a difference of opinion.

To your last point I have no idea how to fix it and the last thing I want to see is people who need the help to lose it because other feel the need to abuse it.

I haven't read the whole thread so excuse me if this has been pointed out already however:

I work at Publix in Customer Service. I'm on my second tour of duty, first being in 2000-01. Even back in 2000 the food stamps card was like a debit card and still is.  That is nothing new and if I had time I'd research when the change was made from paper stamps to the debit style card, but it has been around at least a decade.

1) When he handed them to the cashier they caught my eye beacuse it was not cash and at first I thought it was like foreign money or something. I don't remember what they said exactly but they were in fact food stamps.

2) That's great glad to hear it maybe it was longer than a year either way I am not sure what you are trying to prove with that as I know what I saw. I certainly hope you are not impying that I am fabricating a story. I have nothing to prove, at the same time I have no reason to lie about such an event.

The notion of people driving to pick up Medicaid prescriptions in a BMW is a popular conservative myth, originated by Ronald Reagan's "Cadillac-driving welfare queens" stories in the '80s.  There is no basis in fact for these tales of horror, and simple logic (link (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/03/haley_barbours_medicaid_fantas.html)) contradicts their validity.

Now, I suppose you could argue that when one loses one's job, instead of applying for unemployment and/or other government assistance, you should immediately proceed to selling your house and your car, move to the ghetto, and buy a '93 Escort.  I don't know that that would be the wisest long-term solution (particularly given that as a working taxpayer, you paid into these programs for years), but I guess you could do it.

I'm saying that your story is bullshit. That's all, brah.

The problem of that receipt is on the store owners and not the recipients. That store wanted to increase profits, so it illegally takes in food stamps for items not covered by food stamp( i.e. the basics.) Of course you ignore this simple fact because then that means business owners are also a main cause of the problem but since they tend to vote GOP the right cannot attack them for their crimes and greed.
Also you use anecdotal evidence of Cadillac drivers using stamps. Even though this does not apply to the majority of users, you continually broadcast it out as the truth about the whole. I grew up in a rural area that had high unemployment( well over 10% in the 80's) and I never once saw the people using food stamps ever leave or arrive in a nice vehicle.
The problem with people selling food stamps? Once again you have businesses who will take food stamps to make profit without insuring that they are not being used illegally.
So at least a couple of the major problems with how food stamps are being used can be combated by vigorously going after the business owners who are enabling the illegal uses of food stamps. Good luck ever getting the GOP to go after those criminals. Poor people do not have a lobby to defend them.

Pure supposition and blatantly false.  The underlying assumption of this statement is that over half of the population of the United States is using food stamps.  Do you really believe that, Mitt?

There is no correlation between obesity and food stamps.  This is utterly ridiculous.

No worries, it's all good at the end of the day I won't lose any sleep over it.  ;)

Any time anyone wants to meet me in small town Sanford, Florida I will drive you through the projects, low income areas. If we see less than a dozen autos not worth over $40,000 I will kiss your butt.

^^ tempting! ;)

I would actually have fun taking you Brian ... but you can't drive that fast in there because  the roads are very narrow. You like to drive fast!

About 10 years ago I took a pastor friend of mine, as well a missionary from New Tribes mission. The pastor was from Brimingham and wanted to see how bad it is. Lol ... he couldn't get out of there fast enough.  It scared the crap out of him.

A lot of it has been condemned and closed down but there are still enough rough areas to get the point across.   

That doesn't mean they were bought with food stamps.  Odds are if you see a $40,000 car in the slums the guy is either a pimp, john, or drug dealer. 

I didn't say they were. I'm just saying lot's of very nice cars in low income housing. I can say I know guys who are in construction driving nice cars while their baby mommas are on welfare. In fact I bet its probably pretty common now a days to not get married for that reason.

So you're saying that they handed over paper bills, and not a card?

Because if they were paper bills, and this event occurred after 2001, they were not food stamps.  Congress mandated that all food stamp programs convert to electronic cards in 2001.

Is that where all the NBA guys are retiring to? :D ;D

 If I come all the way down there to see you,hang out with you...I don't want to go to the hood.

 
This is to Brian,and Dave...Buying a beater,might also being buying someone else's money pit.Gas guzzler,that might cost in fuel...You might give up a valuable reliable car,and be worse off than if you kept what you had.

Don't worry. I'd take you to Osteen where it's very Redneck friendly!!  And of course a Dolphin game!!!

I lived in the poorest area of my town when I bought my twin-turbo convertible sportscar.  That doesn't mean that I was on government assistance.  It just means I enjoyed my cheap rent.

I know the exact are you are talking about. I had a friend doing remodeling work back there and the owner wouldn't let him work until dark (which is not uncommon for those guys).

Ok, and your point is ?


No, it's not a myth. I see it on an ongoing regular basis and have seen it for years. They just multiply like roaches and never get married and milk the system dry. You don't have to own the car or be on the title to use and drive the vehicle. Hell, go to a colorful area of town and see the expensive vehicles that cost more the house they are parked in front of. Not to mention those expensive silly looking shiny wheels they have on them.


Obviously you don't know that there are no restricted food item on the program. According to the USDA Food and Nutrition Services website, prohibited items include alcohol such as beer, wine or liquor; tobacco products such as cigarettes; non-food items such as cleaners or paper products; pet supplies; over-the-counter medicine or vitamins; food that is meant for on-site consumption; and all hot foods. So it's not the retailers fault if the clowns in the government let bums, freeloaders, and "baby mommas" with multiple kids and unknown "baby daddy" eat steak and lobster while the rest of working America eats what they can afford



No, YOU are WRONG. It is not anecdotal, it is actually what I have personally seen and witnessed for myself. And again it is not illegal to buy steak and lobster on food stamps. It should be, that is the problem.


NO CORRELATION ? Ummmm, ok. A quick Google search would suggest otherwise.

>>>>>>>>see here-
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/foodstamp.htm  (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/foodstamp.htm)

The demographic charts would also suggest otherwise.

(http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p14/badger6/obese_zpsae3f06a2.gif)

(http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p14/badger6/Foodstamp_zps08d183a7.png)

The #1 state in both obesity and food stamps. Drum roll please..................Missi ssippi.

The only thing that is utterly ridiculous is the people in this country that refuse to admit to the problems that need to be fixed.

Actually there is correlation.  However, the claim that is often implied is there is causation.  That food stamps is giving people so much food they are becoming obese.  This is false and utterly ridiculous. 

 

That is not my implication. They are fat asses because of what they eat. $20 worth of grilled chicken and broccoli is going to have a different effect than $20 worth of Captain Crunch, Kool Aid, and Doritos. As far as I'm concerned there is a difference between starving and being hungry. Absent of a medical problem, there shouldn't be that many obese people on food stamps, but there are. Feed them enough of certain healthy low cost foods to survive. Make it uncomfortable and not fun to be on food stamps. You would probably kill 2 birds with one stone by helping them be healthier in the long run and save the taxpayers money on the free healthcare that they are forced to provide to the people that are too lazy and unmotivated to feed and take care of themselves.....

That's the definition of an anecdotal evidence.

And hoodie is right. Correlation exists. But not causation.

No, you have not.

How many people can you personally verify the income of?
Of those people, how many have you followed to the supermarket to inspect their method of payment?

It is a conservative myth.  Hell, your own statement undoes you:

So, in other words, if I'm too poor to own a car, and I borrow my uncle's vehicle so I can transport groceries from the supermarket to my home, I am abusing the system?  Am I really only truly poor if none of my family or friends have a car?  Or is it only if they don't have a nice car?

I just finished explaining that I personally bought an expensive vehicle when I lived in a poor part of town.  Your premise is false.

The irony is that you loudly protest people buying excessively expensive food... at the same time you attack the obesity of food stamp recipients.  You know that healthy food isn't cheap, right?  Do you propose to eliminate all unhealthy food from food stamp eligibility... then double the benefits that recipients are given?

Yes, I have. You have no idea what I've seen silly little boy. You just keep arguing with people in threads until they get frustrated, tired, or bored and give up. Then you think you are the winner. Ha, ha, your low self esteem is so amusing.....
 

You can't verify income of people that purposefully have little to no income in order to receive their benefits.  "baby daddy" isn't known when it comes to child support enforcement, but somehow he is living in the same house and has income and a vehicle or two.



 I don't have to when I see them swipe their card at the terminal. Ain't that hard to figure out.


Undone me ? Nothing about me is undone. You are under the false assumption that I give half a rats fuck what you think you know. You are clearly wrong about that, among other things !!!

So in other words, "baby momma" drives a car everyday but is not listed on the title. She is still getting benefit of the car. Benefit of a car is not your name on a piece of paper, it is the actually use of the car. Where I work there are 2 guys that don't go anywhere unless their "baby factory" takes them. The guys work and bring home the money and own the car and the "baby factory" brings home the Govt. assistance. Of course the guys don't pay child support but do get benefit of the assistance. Quite a widespread scam.


You explaining your own poor financial decisions has nothing to do with this discussion unless you are on food stamps.



Healthy food is less expensive than steak and lobster isn't it ? People are obese because they eat more calories than they expend, that is a fact. I would suggest that instead of the whole buggy full of cheap bull shit these people are cramming down throats by the shovel full. That they could buy a moderate amount of healthy food for around the same price.  Are you people actually trying to argue that people that don't financially contribute to society or themselves should eat the same food and luxury type foods that me and others who actually go to work everyday eat ?

Actually that would make the problem worse. 

That fastest way to create a person with obesity/eating issues is a period of hunger/food uncertainty.  Once food becomes availble they gorge themselves for the rest of their lives. 

No it wouldn't. If the type and amount of food to get obese isn't available on government fraud stamps then how would they get obese ? I guess if they got off of government assistance then they could gorge themselves. But at least they are off of the food stamps. I would rather have obese people feeding themselves than obese people on food stamps.

Note the chart didn't track people who are obese and on foodstamps, it tracked states in which both occured.  Or basically poverty is a correlated with obesity.

Solve the poverty problem and the obesity problem declines. 

So is your assumption that being on food stamps has nothing to do with obesity in those states ?

Considering the regions, no. In the South, we eat. Its who we are. Everything revolves around food. The Rockies region is more of an "outdoors" region. Being on food stamps isn't a gateway to obesity. Nor is being obese a gateway to being on food stamps. At the same time, the biggest offenders of "welfare" are people we work for and/or buy from. What's worse? Paying someone who doesn't work or paying someone to outsource jobs or NOT to grow food?

So wait... you can't verify the income of someone who purposefully has little to no income?  Your statement is a contradiction in itself: if income cannot be verified, how can you possibly say what income a person has?

Put simply: you don't have a clue WTF you are talking about.

Benefits are determined by household income, to prevent exactly the kind of abuse you are talking about.  The system is designed to catch and eliminate people like those you are claiming.  Government assistance fraud is something like 4%... I guess you must personally know all of them!

The only people you see swiping cards are people whose incomes you cannot verify.  Q.E.D.

You said, "Hell, go to a colorful area of town and see the expensive vehicles that cost more the house they are parked in front of."  So then, what does traveling to a poor area of town have to do with food stamps?  The obvious implication is that people in "colorful" areas are on government assistance and therefore should not be able to afford nice cars, but perhaps you meant something else by your statement.  So please explain.

So let me see if I have this right:

- poor people should not buy large amounts of cheap food
- poor people should not buy small amounts of expensive food (e.g. steak, lobster)
- poor people should buy only food that is exactly expensive enough

And how is "expensive enough" determined?  Well, if you aren't hungry (but with nothing to eat) at least part of the time, then you're doing it wrong.  Did I get that all correct?

I am working three jobs right now and I STILL don't make enough to live on my own.

If I didn't have my parents, I'd have to turn to public assistance programs, such as Mass Health (a health insurance program for low income people in my home state).

Of course, if I did that, most Republicans would call me a lazy bum.

It's hard out there.  Most Republicans don't seem to think that.

That's because most republicans are rich and don't understand that not everyone has thousands or millions of dollars lying around. They all have money and can't comprehend what it's like to struggle.

Just from my observations.

The republican base consists of the very wealthy yes, but a large population are the very religious and rednecks.

The poorest/least educated states vote Republican, though.

This is the Republican strategy for their low-income base, in a nutshell:

(http://www.nextnewdeal.net/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/content_images/submergedtable3.png)

Republicans have convinced a sizable portion of the country that the other (minorities, immigrants, what have you) are the ones getting all those lavish government benefits.  It is the classic example of people on Medicare or receiving SS checks complaining about a handout society.

It's just like the old saying about congressional spending: every person can quickly identify wasteful spending in another man's district, but the spending in his own district is surely wise and justifiable investment in our republic.

One way to lower the amount of people on welfare and social assistance is free, easily accessible birth control and safe, affordable, convenient abortions.

I think the use of "THOSE" people throughout this entire thread should really be interpreted to read: "THOSE BROWN" people. I get the feeling that some in this thread think people that look a certain way should not have certain things and are making huge assumptions.

Also proves my point. The Republican party is the party of old, angry, white men.

I already gave an example of my family.  Maybe I should have included the tag line this is my white relatives since I have both.

This thread personifies the biggest issue in politics.

Republicans vs Democrats is not:

black/minorities vs. white
poor vs rich
women haters vs. women advocates
gay supporters vs. gay bashers

This is what politicians break it down to scare people. I think if you buy into the propaganda, whether Republican or Democrat, then you have shut yourself off and are pretty short-sighted.  Trust me, I have just as many Republicans friends who are completely blind. It really doesn't doesn't matter what your vote is if you aren't objective it's a wasted vote IMO.


 

I have used government assistance and I'm waiting to get a frame for the outcome of it - I have student loans and I got Pell Grant for a year and have a Bachelor's Degree to show for it. Guess I'm part of the problem huh?

Many Republicans have used government assistance. They aren't against it.

Except when they aren't using the programs that they complain about.

It is absolutely correct that most Republicans don't know what its like to struggle.

The main belief of the Republican party is, "If you can't get a lavish job that pays all your benefits, you are a worthless bum and should be left out on the street"

My parents are hard core Republicans, but unlike most people in the Republican party, they don't oppose supporting those in need.

They do object to people who abuse the system, which does happen.

The problem is most Republicans believe anybody who receives any form of government aid is a lazy bum.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't think anyone wouldn't object to people who abuse the system.  That's not a Republican ideal.  I think the definition of "abuse" has some variations, though.

It appears to me that Republicans are more of the mind that they had to work for what they have and so should everyone else.  If you are poor, then you deserve to be poor cause you didn't work hard enough. 

They don't appear to comprehend that sometimes people are poor for reasons out of their own control, and might need some help to get back on their feet. 

I guess folks on foodstamps are either smarter or more honest than homeowners who got a interest deduction. 

CF, I think that poor white people have a hell of a lot more in common with poor minorities than they do with rich people (of any race or party).  That being said, the GOP's strategy for the last 40 years has been to turn poor white voters against other poor (usually minority) voters.

There was a documentary I saw a few months ago called "Two Americas," which chronicled the life of two Houston families; one of an (Hispanic) oil company executive, and another of a (white) construction foreman who had been laid off.  The GOP presidential primary debates were ongoing while this was being filmed, and they showed a clip of Newt Gingrich saying something about ending government assistance, to which the laid-off foreman enthusiastically agrees.

When the filmmaker mentions to him that a significant part of the documentary has been spent showing how vital unemployment benefits and food stamps have been to his family, this is his response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiyFFXT0vr8

It's a total disconnect.

SOMEONE would be?  Who?  What rich asshole is going to knock on his door and offer to buy his family groceries?  That guy is a complete moron.

No contradiction at all. You can only verify what they let you verify. It could be nothing or it could be just under the limit before benefits are lost due to having too much income. You can't verify income from other sources that is purposefully not listed. Illegally made money, jobs that pay cash, money that comes from boyfriend/baby daddy/sugar daddy.......


Who's living at the residence and how do you propose that the issuing agencies are enforcing the "household" income limit ? Do they do stake outs on all of the houses of people on assistance ? I'm fairly certain that they don't have the money, people, or resources for that.


Correct, I cannot verify their income. When you see people buy a buggy load of bullshit that would break my budget and pay with an EBT card. Then notice that they have plenty of "bling" or $150 Nikes, or wearing more expensive clothes than I buy. Then get into an upscale automobile that I can't afford. Kind of easy to put 2 and 2 together.



The implication is that the poor area of town does have more people on assistance. Otherwise it wouldn't be a poor area. Do you dispute that ?


What needs explaining ? If there are more people on government assistance in poor areas. These people shouldn't have expensive vehicles. What did you think that I meant by my statement ?


Well I'll give you some credit, you have it kind of correct. But you put your usual dramatic vocabulary twist on it to make someone else's idea seem much worse than it is. I would say no one on assistance should be eating better (steaks, lobster, prime rib) than most working Americans. I would also say that  no one on assistance should be eating junk and comfort food on the taxpayer dime. A "safety net" is the last thing to catch you before you smash to bits on the ground. So the people on assistance should be provided the bare minimum amount of healthy food to prevent them from starving, ie a safety net to prevent people from malnourishment and starvation. Living large on steak and lobster or getting fat on cheetos, captain crunch, and kool aid isn't a safety net, it's an excuse not to try and better your situation. These days people aren't asking for a hand, they demand a handout.

It is very hard out there, I agree. A you have my sympathy about your situation. But you are working and trying to better yourself and I'm sure that you will succeed in time. But if you had to go on assistance, would you expect to eat steak and lobster or shovel down a bunch of shit food that might just make you feel content for the time being. Or would you be thankful eating a moderate amount of healthy type food since you had no other way to provide it for yourself ? As for me, I'm not rich by any means. But if I needed to go on assistance I would be thankful whatever I got and not have expectations of what someone else should "give" to me. But that's just me......

As if that reflects what most people on assitance eat. 

Let's step back for a second and ask "how did that reciept windup on the internet?"

Do people normally post their reciepts on the interent?  Did an investigative reporter go thru the trash looking for obscene reciepts?  Or did some one looking to score some right wing points pay someone on foodstamps $200 to go in and create that reciept so they could post it on their blog? 

If I was a betting man.  I would bet dollars to donuts --- number 3 was closest to the truth. 

^^ here you go:

On the face of it, the case does seem too flagrant and over-the-top to be true — and now we know why. According to the Menominee County Sheriff's Department, local and state investigators have discovered that the reason the cardholder bought such large quantities of lobster, steak, and soda was not to "dine like a king," as some have characterized it, but to resell them for profit. And that is illegal.

The accused, one Louis Cuff, has been charged with welfare fraud and faces up to five years in prison if convicted.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/ss/Lobster-Steak-Food-Stamp-Receipt.htm

All the while its created 6 pages of one guy being up-in-arms over ALL people abusing welfare, when, in fact, it is an isolated instance of a criminal activity.

News story:
http://www.kmov.com/news/national/Michigan-man-buys-steak-and-lobster-with-food-stamps-resells-for-profit-123583709.html

I couldn't agree more. In addition to people not taking care of themselves and their children, overpopulation will be a problem eventually...


***RACE CARD ALERT***
***RACE CARD ALERT***

You, "thinking the use of "THOSE" people throughout this entire thread should really be interpreted to read: "THOSE BROWN" people." is a huge assumption on your part !!! Hypocrite much ?

I would expect to get some decent foods, but no I would not expect luxurious items from food stamps, so you are right about that.  What I object to is the Republicans assuming anybody who can't get a good job is a lazy bum.

Please, if you are going to quote what I say, at least use the whole sentence instead of picking and choosing what to reply to. Thank you

 

I wouldn't call it isolated. Here what (just for you Buddha)----->"they" do is to take someone to the store and buy what that person wants. The going rate around here is 50%-60% of the receipt total.

Except you have completely disagreed about free (under Obama care) birth control.

Not isolated?

Find another receipt.

I'll wait.  Come up with one more and I'll be convinced it is a rampant problem.

Listen, this isn't complicated: either income can be verified, or it cannot be verified.  If, as you claim, it cannot be verified, then you have no foundation for claiming that people are receiving benefits incommensurate with their income (because you don't know what their income is).

You can't have it both ways.

The 1996 welfare reforms created a huge bureaucracy dedicated to exactly that: finding people who are abusing the system and removing them from the rolls.  Your Reagan-era objections were addressed many, many years ago.

Do you live in a run-down ghetto?  Are you watching a 15" B&W TV?  The fact that you regularly post to a internet website (at all times of the day) implies that you have both a computer and internet access.  So we can reasonably conclude that you choose to spend your money on certain things, when you could spend them on fancy shoes instead (if you wanted to).

You have already conceded that owning a car and driving a car are two very different things.  A poor person choosing to spend more of their money on shoes (and less on whatever things you personally like to spend money on) does not make them less poor.  And you have absolutely no way to know what kind of lifestyle these people live at home.

Once again, we run into consistency issues.  Does living in a poor area mean you are on government assistance, or not?  I had a nice car when I was living in a poor area, and I wasn't on government assistance.  Furthermore, many of my neighbors were not poor people; they were old people who bought their homes when they were new (before that area became run-down) and simply didn't want to sell their home that they had lived in for many years.  Why should these old people have to defend owning a nice car?

...but then you also say that they shouldn't be eating worse (i.e. cheap food).  So basically, in order to satisfy you, they must be eating exactly well enough (but not enough to be fat!).

I look forward to the comprehensive list you will surely provide of exactly which foods are allowed, and exactly what prices must be paid for them.  Will people who perform jobs with high degrees of physical labor (and therefore, burn more calories) be alloted a greater food credit than those who push pencils for a living?  Will fat people be given a smaller allowance than skinny people?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks.  Based on that fact, if I steal from the US Goverment I am going to do it by inflating defense contracts and falsifying what I claim to ship.  That rarely results in jail time.  Stealing via foodstamps sounds a lot more risky.  

Oh, sorry for the miscommunication on my part. I agree that birth control is a key to fixing some of this problem. I expressed my view on obamacare free birth control in the other thread, ha ha.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vZi_x-57ato/T0dq3tk8MaI/AAAAAAAAAzI/OfDUGZ_RX5U/s170/black-guys-laughing.gif)

Says you.  It depends on what is most important or how it was presented. I'd say we all pretty much want the same things but have different ways of wanting it done.

If I ask a poor white Republican (stereotypical redneck) he will say that Democrats are dividing the nation by turning minorities against Republicans by convincing them they are all rich womanizing white men who want to take everything away from them. That couldn't be further from the truth. Country music/nascar fans are considered rich?  Am I saying Republicans are right on everything? Heck no I'm not but they really aren't that extreme either.

To be fair I have had this same conversation with Republicans.

My honest opinion is this. Most people have already chosen a side for whatever reason so by repeating the extremes of the other side they hope to sway the few people who haven't. I am a registered Democrat that has found more common ground under the Republican party as I have gotten older and opened myself up. You have no idea how far I have come to say that. Prior to George W. getting elected I thought my Republican relatives were absolutely racist and biased and I would argue to no ends.  I think it's really funny how much a person can change in 10-15 years ... that's for sure.  But the funny thing is I really haven't changed that much. I feel I see things differently but still want the same things for the most part.

Aren't you born again?  If I had to guess, that's a pretty big part of your politics at this point, whereas it probably wasn't before.

Are you saying that if something can't be verified by our government that it doesn't exist ? Are you implying nobody receiving benefits is fraudulently hiding income from being verified by the government to continue to receive said benefits ? And that if they are successful at hiding that income that it doesn't exist ?


Full of loopholes and waivers. Didn't fix much of anything.


This has got to be one of the silliest things you have ever said and you have clearly made my point. I can choose to buy the things that I buy because I don't ask the taxpayers to feed me. I buy my own fucking food. The point is that if they can afford $150 nikes, gold teeth or chains, nice clothes, or fancy cars, then they can afford their own food. Let me repeat, if they can afford that material bullshit with as you say "their money", then they can afford food with "their money" and forgo all that crap. Food is more important that all of those things. Their lifestyle at home is not relavent if they can afford all the "extra" shit you speak of and choose to buy it instead of food. What a joke, ha ha ha

More likely and a higher percentage than other areas of town. Would you not agree ?


If you and said neighbors were not on assistance who cares ?


Round and round we go. So you think that people on food stamps, a benefit that they don't pay for, should be able to buy whatever they want at the grocery store ?

I think that I might agree with you. Start a thread about US Government Contract Fraud and I will join you in the conversation to exchange ideas.

---------> Back to regularly scheduled programming.................. ......

Is that the best reply you have, ha ha. The name of your picture says it all -------->black-guys-laughing.gif

Oh Buddha, I expected so much more out of you  :(

No, I'm saying that if the gov't can't verify it, you personally damned sure can't verify it.

So then, in your opinion, poverty is not defined by the actual amount of money you have, but rather what you spend that money on?

One person makes $11,000 a year and has one pair of $100 Jordans.  Another person makes $13,000 a year and has four pairs of $30 Wal-Mart shoes.  According to you, the person making less is living the more extravagant lifestyle.  Have I accurately described your position?

Please explain exactly what it is supposed to mean if I see a nice car in a poor area of town, when you have just admitted that you can live in a poor area without being on government assistance!  What was the point you were trying to make when you cited fancy cars in the ghetto as "proof" of fraud and abuse?

No, I think your argument for disallowing food that's too cheap (at the same time you are citing fraudulent criminal activity as proof that food stamp recipients have it too good) is the one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

It's all I could come up with after my eyeballs rolled so far back in their head while reading your statement about birth control. Then dropping the Race Card bullshit all in the same reply?

Comedic. Gold.

I was born again in 1997. Prior to that I was, what I call, a non practicing Christian. Obviously I didn't think that's what I was at the time but I was.  Anyway, I supported gay whatever, I was for a women's right to choose, and generally felt that if it didn't directly affect anyone else, then go for it. It wasn't until years later that I changed my perspective on each of these things. Not that I'm entirely opposed to any of them but I'd say I see things more from a Replican view ... but not the extreme one that keeps getting repeated.

If they didn't buy all there stuff with money, where did it come from ? That shit is coming from somewhere. I know, maybe they pulled it out of their ass......


I guess you think people that milk the taxpayers should be buying $150 shoes in the first place ? How can you justify buying luxury items over food and then asking the taxpayers to feed the person. Personal choices and personal responsibility are just for people not on assistance ?



We'll straighten this out right now.

I have said that poor areas of town have more people on government assistance than other areas ? Do you agree with that ? YES or NO is the only reply that is needed.


Being you must be a hard life !!!

Yea, it's pretty comedic that you would have to bring up race in a thread that no one has even mentioned race. Really shows how people act at the mere thought that their entitlements might be threatened, true colors really come out. Don't worry Buddha, they ain't gonna change the food stamps, it was just a hypothetical example.

There are certainly racial implications when talking about food stamps, especially when you're painting a picture of some thug with a grill.  I suppose it could be a white thug with a grill, but that's not really the image that comes to mind for most.

^^^That's bullshit Dave, no one said anything about brown people except Buddha. And no one said anything about a thug with a grill. Not even close. Nice cars, nice clothes, nikes, and bling is not relegated to thugs with grills or "brown" people.

I humbly suggest that (by your own account) your opinion of Republicans shifting within one presidential term of being born again is no coincidence.

You don't even know that they are the person that bought it (particularly with cars).

No, I'm saying that if you give someone $100 to spend on shoes, and they choose to buy one $100 pair instead of four $25 pairs, that does not magically mean that they are somehow no longer poor.  The only thing you can tell about a person wearing $100 shoes is that their income is at least $100.

Let me know when you can legally buy shoes or cars with food stamps and I'll get back to you on that.

Sure.  But that has absolutely nothing to do with your pointless complaint about luxury cars in the ghetto.

Yeah, just because I bash rapping, basketball-playing, baby-momma-having, platinum-grill-wearing thugs with $150 Nike sneakers and Escalades on 22" spinners, why are you making this into a race thing?  I could be talking about whites or Asians, you know.

Doesn't matter who bought the car. It's a known widespread scam where I am, the people that do it even brag about it sometimes. End of discussion.


People on welfare shouldn't have the money for $100 shoes, if they do, it should have been spent on food.

That shit doesn't even make sense. If you can afford luxury items you can afford food, simple as that. If you are stupid enough to buy non essential items before food you deserve to go hungry.

I knew you didn't have the self control to answer just yes or no, so sad.......


You are so full of shit. I don't recall anything about rapping, basketball, platinum grills, thugs. The only thing I've said is baby momma and nike sneakers and neither are exclusive to any race. It's always the people that play the race card that are the biggest bigots, go look in the mirror. Better yet go get you some food stamps since you like 'em so much, from the taxpayers to spider , you're welcome, enjoy.....................

This thread is nothing but a political smoke screen. To the original question, yeas and no. Our government did not go out and create a dependency class.
It helped create the factors that allowed others to melt our economy down and drive more people onto unemployment and food stamps.
Lets address the actual factors that have helped cause this dilemma. Lets address Social Security, Medicare, and Defense which are sucking up the majority of our federal budget.

 
They are called dog whistles and it is an age old tactic.  They are non-specific, but implied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

Hence my post that this is nothing more than another example of distraction politics. it is designed to divide. Heavy on analogy and anecdotal evidence, then applied liberally to the whole group.

That's crazy talk, you people are off your damn rockers....

So far, here are the keywords you have used in this thread:

"Lincoln/Cadillac/Luxury SUV"
"expensive silly looking shiny wheels"
"$150 Nikes"
"gold teeth"
"baby daddy"
"baby momma"
"bling"
"Kool-Aid"

Now, if you're going to sit here and pretend that all of those terms are totally race-neutral, then you might as well go all out and pretend that rapping and playing basketball don't imply race, either.  I mean, there are Asian rappers!  There are white NBA players!  So surely all of those attributes are perfectly race agnostic.

Your use of dog-whistle code words is neither innovative nor ambiguous.

^ Exactly.

You didn't give examples of people getting food stamps, while still spending all of their money on Nascar collector plates, hunting rifles, and sushi.

Look, this thread is in the toilet, and nobody is calling you a racist (at least I'm not), but you are (whether you realize it or not) turning this into a racially-charged discussion by using code-words.  Even if you don't recognize you're doing it...you are.

Where I grew up everyone on food stamps was white.

Badger, the chances of me being needing food stamps are pretty fucking low. I have no kids, am college educated (possibly getting my masters!), and grew up upper middle class. My dad owns a very successful business as well and some property. If shit hit the fan, I'm sure I'd find a way to make things work. I have NEVER been on any sort of public assistance.

I just like to call things as I see them. You are using ridiculously coded language. 

Bingo.  Food stamps and poverty know no racial boundaries.  And as for seeing nice cars in the hood, I know some African American people that have money and are well off.  They told me that they choose to live in the hood because they feel better living among their own kind. 

It wasn't over one term but I do think things coincide. For example, I'm just now understanding or seeing what I started this thread about. Prior to the last year (during last election for sure) or so I just thought we should accept the few bad apples because so many really need it. I felt the Republicans didn't understand the need to help.  I now believe that under our current conditions we are not only enabling people but almost encouraging people to take whatever they can get ... which I think is wrong. 

But isn't that our American way of capitalism? Take what you can get and anyone else be damned? I can see that all the was from welfare abuse to multi-million dollar corporations.

If someone wants to pay $500 for a steak I dont have problem with that. If someone is giving away steaks to the needy and a bunch of middle class people pretend to be needy in order to get the free steaks then I have a problem with it. I don't think person selling the $500 steak should be forced to do anything extra only because they have legally figured out a way to make money on steak. No one is screwed over in this capitalist scenario.

Code words, WTF ? The so called "code words" that I have used are descriptive words that describe what I have personally seen with my own eyes. You don't like my vernacular, go home and cry to momma or get over it.

Although I'm sure they exist, I have ever have witnessed rednecks with Nascar plates, hunting rifles, or sushi purchasing food on EBT cards. I cannot attest to that.

I don't see this thread in the toilet. I see a bunch of people resorting to the only thing they have left to cling to, the race card. Poor me against all the bleeding heart liberals around here. I'll tell you though, there are a few around here that agree with me. They just don't want to get into the middle of the "witch hunts" around here. As for me, I don't give a shit, I'm good. While we're picking apart posts and judging peoples every words. I do believe that the original person that started complaining about the "code worded" stereotyping of "brown" people said:


WTF is that ? Could that be a stereotype. Like I said earlier, Hypocrite much ?

There's that double standard again. Dems and Blacks get the benefit of doing what they like while if anyone else does the same thing they bitch and whine and pull the race card. Kind of amusing.....

O'rly, Wow, impressive. Thank you for clearing that up for me. I'm going to astronaut school next spring. Say hello to the Rockerfellers and Waltons for me. And Buddha, you have a great day !!!

You're not really one to entertain opposing points of view, are you?

Why you say that ?

Just because you have a pretty aggressive and derogatory/sarcastic response to almost every post in this thread.  Just seems like you'd rather fire back than consider alternative points of view.

What is the alternative point of view ? There is nothing in this thread to consider as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure you know why my responses are the way they are and why they will continue to be, if not you haven't paid attention.

You're not doing anything to change that stereotype are you?

Thanks, you pretty much answered my question.

I'm not old, angry, or Republican. And although I am white, I think that I'll live with that one for a while. But thanks for your concern...

Republicans too liberal?

Huh ?

You cannot attest to the majority of recipients either, yet this has not prevented you from condemning the whole lot based on a small sample of anecdotal evidence.
I have seen many whites abuse the welfare/food stamp/unemployment system too, yet I do not assume they are all doing it. I know there are people who have turned to the system since the recession as a last resort, because they have pride and tried to overcome their problems on their own.
But as you do not think that the economic meltdown and years in a slump have anything to do with this issue. Funny that public assistance was not near the issue it is this election cycle, since there were not tens of millions of new people on the rolls since 2008.

That's an assumption. I'd be interested to see the numbers. Considering the number of people who have taken themselves out of the job looking market I have a very hard time believing that.

badger ... trust me, there are many NASCAR fans collecting food stamps and WIC assistance. I'll go one farther. There are a bunch of WWE fans doing the same. 

Then how can they afford to go to all the races/wrestling events?

Which goes back to the original question. I find it comical that the first thing people attack are the lifetime welfare recipients. If I was 50+ and the job I had disappeared, I would find it difficult to start over. I'm not saying that it would be impossible. But if you retrain at 55, who's going to hire you at the entry level? We buy into a dream that says, "if you work hard, you will be rewarded." Really? Because there are a whole bunch of people who worked hard, and now find themselves being the target for public scorn. Why? Because the very same institution that created this mess, is now trying to tell the public that these "freeloaders" are bleeding "us" dry. In case you didn't know, I'm talking about congress. They set up free trade agreements. They incentivize corporations to export jobs. They destroy the middle class, and then blame the poor. The very same poor they lock up or send overseas to protect "their" interests. This influx of the "dependency" class is a result. Not a cause.

I'll give you two out of three. Since you complain about the old people at work making you work harder and say you are voting third party I guess you know which one is in dispute.

I spent $10 to spend 5 days in the infield at Daytona. Just saying.

You lived on $2 a day. Your firends or family must really like you.

Like I have said before, all that I can attest to is what I have seen and continue to see with my own eyes in person. The thread is, "Are we creating a major dependency class ?" You see, I am not condemning blacks, whites, blues, or greens. I am saying that the system should not let anyone use food stamps to eat steak, lobster, ect.  I am also saying that the system should be purposefully uncomfortable for everyone that uses the system. Additionally, I am saying that the system should be more like the WIC program, in that it has a moderate and limited amount of healthy staple items that would be purchased by everyone using taxpayer assistance. In other words, no junk food. This would give people an incentive to upgrade their menu, help with food stamp fraud, and should help with the health issues of eating too much junk food. So who is being condemned ?



I don't dispute that, I'll take you at your word. Again, if you were not paying attention, read to the following.




Good for them...


Public assistance has always been a problem. To make it seem like it just started is just plain silly. If that was the case  and public assistance was not an issue until now, the Welfare reform act that spider mentioned wouldn't have ever been needed. The fact is that with this governments debt we are at the tipping point and we can't afford to let government waste continue. That is why it is an issue.

I'm quite sure there are. I have a friend that was getting food stamps in 2 states at once. He had to take himself off of food stamps in his former state of residence. That went on for 2-2.5 years. And get this, he was a honky. So like I said, I'm know that white people abuse the system, not sure why this keeps coming up.

More assumptions, twisting words out of context for your own agenda . But please continue, what can I clarify for you ?

You do not need to clarify a thing. Just about everyone on this board (even people who agree with your stances of welfare abuse) can sense the anger behind your posts. We could start a poll but I assume the mods would consider it an attack.

^^^^^Is that your official clairvoyant internet anger meter or an assumption ? Also, before speaking on everyone's behalf, did you speak to everyone on this board (even people the people that agree with my stances) to verify if they possess the internet anger meter you speak of, that allows them to sense the anger behind my posts ? Or would that be another assumption ? I'm sure that all your little buddies around here will now all pile on and agree with you and back you up now that you have made your silly assumptions, but it really doesn't matter because at that point it will be more transparent than it already is. If it gets you off to call me angry, have at it and enjoy little fella. But know this, what you think and your opinion of me means nothing to me, you are nothing to me, and you are nothing in life. Now go try to bully someone else or proceed sir, your choice.

^^^^All said with a smile while LMFAO ;D, hope you have an incredibly angry evening >:(, take care......

On a related note, I was speaking with a female friend today and casually asked her about some of the stuff that in this thread. She told me her personal story. When she had her first child she went and signed up for WIC and was approved. Sometime around that time she became unemployed and went to apply for food stamps. She qualified for every thing they asked for except when they asked if she had a car. She did, she had a car that was financed and she was behind a payment. They told her that since she had a car in her name that she did not qualify for food stamps. BUT if she could put the car in someone else's name or sell it to a family member for a dollar that she would qualify and that she could still use and get her car back later. In the end, due to the car being financed and past due, she couldn't put it in another persons name. So they gave her a $50 dollar food voucher that could only be redeemed at 2 stores in town. Where were these 2 stores ? Not just the poor area, the most absolutely shitty part of town that anyone would ever go to. I wonder why that is ?

Now I have to things that I don't understand.

Why would a financed car count against you for food stamps ? It is a debt not an asset.

Why would case workers explain to someone how to fraudulently transfer a vehicle in order to exploit the system ?

I stand corrected. No hostility in any of this "little fella"

In many states you can gift a vehicle to a family member. It is not fraud, it is perfectly legal.

Does a mortgaged home count as an asset before you have completely paid it off?  Until that point, it is also a debt.

Is it "fraud" to donate money to charity to put yourself into a lower tax bracket?  How about to buy an electric car just to receive the tax rebate?

The law ostensibly prevents people with substantial assets from enrolling in that particular program.  If you've sold your asset, you no longer have it.  If you can then qualify for the program (after having sold the asset in question), that is the system working as intended.

To give another example:  if some case worker said you didn't qualify for assistance because you owned your home, and you then sold your home and were still poor, how is that even "gaming the system"?  You're pulling out every stop to try to make ends meet, and you still need help.

Furthermore, you say yourself that the financed car is a debt, so if she can get someone else to take that debt off her hands (even for $1), how is that fraud?

Just to clarify. It cost $10 to camp out for those 5 days. It cost $20 per visit to the paddock area. And we brought our own food. In the end, it was still cheaper to  spend that week at Daytona, than to go to one football game.

What race was that Diablo? I thought you still had to purchase race tickets.

The July race at Daytona in 2003.  The access to the paddock area was your ticket. Stood behind the fence line of pit row.