On Thursday, January 2, 2014 7:05:13 AM UTC-6, George L wrote:
>
> On 1/1/2014 9:31 PM, wrote:
>
>
> > (Ridiculous long winded rant snipped.) No, it's not. Just this past Thanksgiving there was a story in our local newspaper WITH PICTURES taken at the local homeless shelter of the meal provided for the 'homeless and out of work.' No faces were shown just the rows of place sittings with full plates and next to m-a-n-y plates were smart phones, Blackberries, and iPhones, NO TracFones to be seen anywhere. So don't preach to me about how bigoted I am. If they're 'homeless and out of work' how are they able to pay for access each month?
>
>
> So in your world, people on welfare or food stamps or eating a meal at a
> shelter should have to give up their cell phones in order to receive any
> assistance?
>
>
I did not state they should give up their cell phones, no where in my post did I state that so don't try to twist my words so you will feel righteous. What I did say was people getting free meals who may or may not be homeless or out of work but they can afford the latest and greatest phones with ALL the bells and whistles. How can they afford these if they are so 'needy?'
>
>
> And of course, we have already heard from the "they buy junk food" crowd
> so let's restrict food stamps to buying rice and beans and powdered milk.
> And we have also heard from the "they have a car" and the "they have a
> TV" crowds so maybe before someone gets any assistance we should make
> them sell their cars and TVs to buy food.
>
>
Now you're just posting stupid stuff. But no, I don't think they should be buying junk food but I don't think they should be buying powdered milk either. If they want to buy junk, get a job! Buying a $20 pizza with food stamps/EBT card is plain stupid. Grocery aren't cheap but $20 will buy enough food for more than one meal which is what a pizza is. I'm only using pizza as an example of some of the idiotic things many on the dole do.
>
>
> But lets solve the problem by cutting the food stamp and welfare
> benefits for poor people.
>
>
No one said that but you.
>
>
> Christian nation my ass. Some of you should be ashamed of yourself.
>
> George L
>
>
No one said anything about this being a Christian nation but you, in fact that's the first time that has come up in this discussion.

On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:19:15 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

> I did not state they should give up their cell phones, no where in my post did I state that so don't try to twist my words so you will feel righteous. What I did say was people getting free meals who may or may not be homeless or out of work but they can afford the latest and greatest phones with ALL the bells and whistles. How can they afford these if they are so 'needy?'

The phones can be an older model and the plan inexpensive. Hubby has
a plan that costs him $75 a year, mine is $35 a month (with data) and
no contract.

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila

On 1/2/2014 11:46 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> When I was ten years old I earned good money painting
> stoops... $50/day was a lot of money in 1953. I always had a job,
> some not much fun like cleaning blood and guts in a live chicken
> market, but someone has to do that kind of work... wasn't such a bad
> summer job when my pockets were jingling. I worked at every mom n'
> pop in the hood, I was never idle and I never got an allowance. I
> look at young adults on TV literally sobbing how they can't find
> work... poor babies... they make me wanna puke, those useless lazy
> *******s.

Times sure have changed since you were a kid. Just as your parents and
grandparents complained about your generation of 'kids', you're
complaining about the next generation. It's something I promised myself
I wouldn't do and I think I've been pretty successful at that. Time
marches forward and things change. That's just how it is. Doesn't make
'what was' better than 'what is.' They're just different.

Finding a job isn't as easy as it was when I was a young lady - I'm 61.
I was never out of a job and never had any problem getting one. It
was a different story a few years ago when I was downsized out of a long
time job. Finding another one took me a very long time.

If you're making your judgment based on what you see on TV then please
get out into the real world and see what's going on. Court TV and Judge
Judy give you a very skewed version of the real world. Times have
changed since 1953, time to drag yourself into the present.

--
DreadfulBitch

I intend to live forever....so far, so good.
......Steven Wright

> Not exactly. You can buy cooked food that is cold, but you can't buy a
>
> hot ready to rat meal. You can buy bread and lunch meat, but you can't
>
> buy a sandwich.

I've never been on food stamps or EBT, but I heard somewhere that Advance Auto Parts accepts them now.

Perhaps the most flagrant abuse I have ever seen of the food stamp system was by the video of the now-deceased rapper Ol Dirty *******, or ODB, who was quite wealthy, showing up in a limo with an MTV camera crew in tow, to pick up his monthly supply of food stamps.

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


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

On 1/1/2014 8:46 PM, Cheri wrote:

>> I think I have it fixed. I use Thunderbird and somehow checked the
>> 'attach vcard' (or something like that) in the account settings. Is
>> it gone?
>
> Yes.
>
> Cheri

Thank you, Julie, Nancy & Cheri!

--
DreadfulBitch

I intend to live forever....so far, so good.
......Steven Wright

On 1/2/2014 3:34 PM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:19:15 -0800 (PST), "
> > wrote:
>
>> I did not state they should give up their cell phones, no where in my post did I state that so don't try to twist my words so you will feel righteous. What I did say was people getting free meals who may or may not be homeless or out of work but they can afford the latest and greatest phones with ALL the bells and whistles. How can they afford these if they are so 'needy?'
>
> The phones can be an older model and the plan inexpensive. Hubby has
> a plan that costs him $75 a year, mine is $35 a month (with data) and
> no contract.
>


Her basic premise is that if you have a cell phone you are not needy.
So I'm wondering, if you are homeless or out of work... how do you find
a job without a phone? Walk into some business, fill out an application
and say "Sorry, I don't have a phone but if you would like to interview
me for a job, we can be found living under the 5th Street overpass?

If you live in a city (like Sheldon did when he was a kid) there are
probably 200+ businesses within a 15 minute walk of your home. Most
people don't live like that any more. If you live in a suburban or
rural area, you NEED a car if you are going to get a job.

The idea that people who own a cell phone or have a ca aren't "needy
enough" ****es me off to no end. 16 MILLION CHILDREN IN THE US LIVE IN
HOMES WHERE THE INCOME IS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL! In the richest
country in the world, that is a disgrace.

So let's cut off the food stamp programs that feed these kids because
Mom has a cell phone and that is proof that she isn't "needy enough".

Again... FACT... 83% of food stamp benefits go to families that have
children or elderly. If you are healthy and able to work and have no
dependents, the longest you can collect food stamps is 3 months. Funny
how some people keep overlooking these facts because they are so
outraged over a cell phone or how someone used food stamps to buy potato
chips.

Sometimes people and their attitudes about the poor disgust me. I don't
give a rat's ass if you are a Christian, Buddhist, Holy Roller, Atheist
if you worship dead cats. If you are ANY kind of ethical or moral person
at all, you don't quibble about helping the poor. Period.

George L

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 17:49:04 -0600, George Leppla
> wrote:

> If you are ANY kind of ethical or moral person
> at all, you don't quibble about helping the poor. Period.
>

I most certainly agree. Unfortunately, it seems like the most vocal
"Christians" are of the Ted Cruz and Duck Dynasty ilk... bible
thumpers without a Christian bone in their bodies.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

George Leppla wrote:
> On 1/2/2014 7:26 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>> On 1/2/2014 8:05 AM, George Leppla wrote:
>>
>>> Christian nation my ass.
>>
>> No, we're not, as much as some people would like it to be so.
>> No offense meant, and I agree with much of what you say, but
>> we have too many people trying to insist we live by their
>> religious rules already.
>>
>> nancy
>>
>
> What I was trying to point out is that many of the people who claim that
> this is a nation founded on Christian principles are the first to turn
> their backs on the poor. The Teabaggers want God back in our country
> and in our classrooms, but when it comes to helping poor people, that is
> something else. They are all about cutting welfare, unemployment
> benefits, food stamps and health care for the poor.
>
> Sunday Saints, Monday sinners.... and anyone who claims to have
> Christian values and turns their back on the poor are hypocrites.
>

Your nation wasn't founded on Christian principles.
Your nation was founded by Calvinistic lunatics who were
kicked out of Britain because they were slightly right to Cromwell
and Attila the Hun.
Slave - owners who invoked Jesus in every sentence; the good old USA.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

On 1/2/2014 5:56 PM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 17:49:04 -0600, George Leppla
> > wrote:
>
>> If you are ANY kind of ethical or moral person
>> at all, you don't quibble about helping the poor. Period.
>>
>
> I most certainly agree. Unfortunately, it seems like the most vocal
> "Christians" are of the Ted Cruz and Duck Dynasty ilk... bible
> thumpers without a Christian bone in their bodies.
>


Yep... a hymn on their lips and their hands raised to Heaven praising
God and Jesus..... while they are willing to let children starve at
their feet because their parents may not be "needy enough" to suit them.

How many meals does a kid have to miss before they are deemed to be
"needy enough" to get assistance?

George L

On 1/2/2014 2:03 PM, George Leppla wrote:

> The problem with Sheldon's argument is that it assumes that the people
> on food stamps or welfare are "able bodied" when in fact, most people
> are children or the elderly.
>
> http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fig...realities.aspx
>
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/6ncmdtb
>
> "76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a
> disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP
> benefits."
>
> "The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744"
>

That still leaves 24% that are able bodied and can do some work. How
about 4 hours a week at the town parks department? Or at a hospital?


>
> As for the argument that we are raising generations of welfare
> families... here is the fact:
>
> "SNAP already has strict time-limits for unemployed workers. Able-bodied
> adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP
> benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a
> qualifying job training program.


I know of at least two people that are able bodied and have been getting
SNAP benefits for over two years. They do fill out some forms
periodically to remain qualified. Evidently there are loopholes.



> So you guys just keep watching Fox news and whining about how the poor
> are bleeding you dry and while you do that,

I don't watch Fox news, but I see some real life situations. Some people
need and deserve help, others abuse the system. A few bad ones make
many look bad.




the Bankers, Wall Street
> moguls and the Corporate Tax breaks and subsidies are emptying out our
> country's bank accounts.

That may be true, but it is not related to the welfare and food stamp
leeches.

On 1/2/2014 6:26 PM, Michael OConnor wrote:

> Perhaps the most flagrant abuse I have ever seen of the food stamp system was by the video of the now-deceased rapper Ol Dirty *******, or ODB, who was quite wealthy, showing up in a limo with an MTV camera crew in tow, to pick up his monthly supply of food stamps.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrvnLpLjTuA
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrvnLpLjTuA
>

Looks more like a publicity stunt just to get people upset.

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/2/2014 10:27 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote
>
>>> On 1/2/2014 8:51 AM, George Leppla wrote:
>
>>>> The Teabaggers want God back in our country
>>>> and in our classrooms, but when it comes to helping poor people, that
>>>> is
>>>> something else. They are all about cutting welfare, unemployment
>>>> benefits, food stamps and health care for the poor.
>>>
>>> We are on the same page. They don't even see themselves.
>>> Whatever happened to WWJD.
>>
>> I think he might very well remind us that there are the poor, and then
>> there
>> are the truly needy.
>
> Though I am not religious, I did go to Sunday school and church as
> a kid. I remember Jesus felt it was important to make wine for people
> who didn't really need more, and no means test for all those loaves
> and fishes, just handed it out because they were hungry.
>
> Regardless, the people we're discussing would begrudge a crumb
> to even truly needy people.
>
> nancy

Agree with you there.

"George Leppla" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/2/2014 12:26 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:46:30 -0500, Brooklyn1
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:51:30 -0600, George Leppla
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/2/2014 7:26 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/2014 8:05 AM, George Leppla wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Christian nation my ass.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, we're not, as much as some people would like it to be so.
>>>>> No offense meant, and I agree with much of what you say, but
>>>>> we have too many people trying to insist we live by their
>>>>> religious rules already.
>>>>>
>>>>> nancy
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I was trying to point out is that many of the people who claim
>>>> that
>>>> this is a nation founded on Christian principles are the first to turn
>>>> their backs on the poor. The Teabaggers want God back in our country
>>>> and in our classrooms, but when it comes to helping poor people, that
>>>> is
>>>> something else. They are all about cutting welfare, unemployment
>>>> benefits, food stamps and health care for the poor.
>>>>
>>>> Sunday Saints, Monday sinners.... and anyone who claims to have
>>>> Christian values and turns their back on the poor are hypocrites.
>>>>
>>>> George L
>>>
>>> But the "poor" turn their backs on the productive society. Make those
>>> poor lazy *******s earn their keep. I'm not religious so Christianity
>>> be damned... that's just an excuse for the blind belief retards... to
>>> me religious leaders are no different from carny hucksters, separating
>>> suckers from their money.
>>>
>>> There are plenty of jobs, the moochers are just ascared of dirty
>>> hands, calluses, and perspiration... at minimum hand them a broom and
>>> a paintbrush. The citys are filthy and all public buildings are in
>>> need of paint. When I was ten years old I earned good money painting
>>> stoops... $50/day was a lot of money in 1953. I always had a job,
>>> some not much fun like cleaning blood and guts in a live chicken
>>> market, but someone has to do that kind of work... wasn't such a bad
>>> summer job when my pockets were jingling. I worked at every mom n'
>>> pop in the hood, I was never idle and I never got an allowance. I
>>> look at young adults on TV literally sobbing how they can't find
>>> work... poor babies... they make me wanna puke, those useless lazy
>>> *******s.
>
>
>
> The problem with Sheldon's argument is that it assumes that the people on
> food stamps or welfare are "able bodied" when in fact, most people are
> children or the elderly.
>
> http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fig...realities.aspx
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/6ncmdtb
>
> "76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled
> person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits."
>
> "The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744"
>
>
> As for the argument that we are raising generations of welfare families...
> here is the fact:
>
> "SNAP already has strict time-limits for unemployed workers. Able-bodied
> adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP
> benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a qualifying
> job training program.
>
> The SNAP benefit formula is structured to provide a strong work
> incentive – for every additional dollar a SNAP participant earns, their
> benefits decline by about 24 to 36 cents, not a full dollar, so
> participants have a strong incentive to find work, work longer hours, or
> seek better-paying employment."
>
> So you guys just keep watching Fox news and whining about how the poor are
> bleeding you dry and while you do that, the Bankers, Wall Street moguls
> and the Corporate Tax breaks and subsidies are emptying out our country's
> bank accounts.
>
> George L

That may well be. AFAIK, I only know one person who uses a food bank and
gets a small amount on EBT. Her income is about what you say. Although she
is able bodied, she is *not* able minded. She has over the years managed to
get a few low paying jobs but due to her mental problems, those jobs never
pan out. Sad because before the mental problems happened, she had a good
job for a law office.

I do know quite a few women who got food stamps when they were young. Like
teens and early 20's. Single moms. I did not know them at the time they
got assistance so I don't know particulars and I did not ask. But none were
getting assistance for very long.

I also have two friends who got assistance briefly while married with kids.
In both cases, they worked but didn't make enough to support the family.
One husband did not work and was a lot of cuss words that I know. She left
him. The other had lost his job and had not yet found another. So that
assistance was very temporary.

"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:51:30 -0600, George Leppla
> > wrote:
>
>>On 1/2/2014 7:26 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2014 8:05 AM, George Leppla wrote:
>>>
>>>> Christian nation my ass.
>>>
>>> No, we're not, as much as some people would like it to be so.
>>> No offense meant, and I agree with much of what you say, but
>>> we have too many people trying to insist we live by their
>>> religious rules already.
>>>
>>> nancy
>>>
>>
>>What I was trying to point out is that many of the people who claim that
>>this is a nation founded on Christian principles are the first to turn
>>their backs on the poor. The Teabaggers want God back in our country
>>and in our classrooms, but when it comes to helping poor people, that is
>>something else. They are all about cutting welfare, unemployment
>>benefits, food stamps and health care for the poor.
>>
>>Sunday Saints, Monday sinners.... and anyone who claims to have
>>Christian values and turns their back on the poor are hypocrites.
>>
>>George L
>
> But the "poor" turn their backs on the productive society. Make those
> poor lazy *******s earn their keep. I'm not religious so Christianity
> be damned... that's just an excuse for the blind belief retards... to
> me religious leaders are no different from carny hucksters, separating
> suckers from their money.
>
> There are plenty of jobs, the moochers are just ascared of dirty
> hands, calluses, and perspiration... at minimum hand them a broom and
> a paintbrush. The citys are filthy and all public buildings are in
> need of paint. When I was ten years old I earned good money painting
> stoops... $50/day was a lot of money in 1953. I always had a job,
> some not much fun like cleaning blood and guts in a live chicken
> market, but someone has to do that kind of work... wasn't such a bad
> summer job when my pockets were jingling. I worked at every mom n'
> pop in the hood, I was never idle and I never got an allowance. I
> look at young adults on TV literally sobbing how they can't find
> work... poor babies... they make me wanna puke, those useless lazy
> *******s.

Uh... Maybe things are that way where you are. I know Staten Island was
pretty filthy. You won't see filthy here. We have trash and recycle bins
nearly everywhere. People are very green and very clean.

As for labor jobs, yes there are some but not nearly enough. I am not the
only one whose husband had to go elsewhere for a job. Or in some cases the
wife. That is getting more and more common. When we went through it, some
people scoffed at me. Thought it was horrible that we did not move with
him. But... Our house needed repairs that we couldn't afford to make
and... It's also not up to code and probably will never be. Plus there are
sooo many other houses for sale and in foreclosure in this area. There was
simply no way we could have moved even if we wanted to.

This time of year at least in this area, people are not getting their houses
painted. That gets done in the Spring or Summer. And more and more people
are going to vinyl siding. I do know people who do construction and
remodeling. They say that this time of year, jobs are so few and far
between, they will jump at the chance to do anything! This is also not the
best time to put on a new roof. So if you see someone doing that, chances
are that it was an emergency job.

And not all people are cut out to do manual labor. You would not want me to
build a house for anyone even back when I was able bodied. I can do pretty
well at assembling things. But me and wood do not get along.

"DreadfulBitch" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/2/2014 11:46 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> When I was ten years old I earned good money painting
>> stoops... $50/day was a lot of money in 1953. I always had a job,
>> some not much fun like cleaning blood and guts in a live chicken
>> market, but someone has to do that kind of work... wasn't such a bad
>> summer job when my pockets were jingling. I worked at every mom n'
>> pop in the hood, I was never idle and I never got an allowance. I
>> look at young adults on TV literally sobbing how they can't find
>> work... poor babies... they make me wanna puke, those useless lazy
>> *******s.
>
> Times sure have changed since you were a kid. Just as your parents and
> grandparents complained about your generation of 'kids', you're
> complaining about the next generation. It's something I promised myself I
> wouldn't do and I think I've been pretty successful at that. Time marches
> forward and things change. That's just how it is. Doesn't make 'what
> was' better than 'what is.' They're just different.
>
> Finding a job isn't as easy as it was when I was a young lady - I'm 61. I
> was never out of a job and never had any problem getting one. It was a
> different story a few years ago when I was downsized out of a long time
> job. Finding another one took me a very long time.
>
> If you're making your judgment based on what you see on TV then please get
> out into the real world and see what's going on. Court TV and Judge Judy
> give you a very skewed version of the real world. Times have changed
> since 1953, time to drag yourself into the present.

Court TV may give a skewed version only because they cherry pick people who
will cause drama and will sometimes sue for the silliest things. I watch
those shows and also the cop and jail shows. I find them interesting. When
I worked at K Mart I did sometimes run across the types of people I see on
those shows. So I know they are real. But in my life now? I rarely see
them. Not never. Just rarely.

As for jobs... My dad's dad died when he was 8. His mom said to him that
he was the man of he family now so he would have to get a job. And he did.
He worked at the lumber yard, liquor store and a variety of other places.
In those days it was common to pay a kid under the table like that and I
don't think we had any laws in place to protect them.

I did babysitting and various jobs for the church when I was a kid or a teen
who was not legally old enough to get a real job. I also tried farm work
for one day. No way would I do that again!

These days there isn't much at all available for kids. Most volunteer
things require the parent to work along with the kid. Babysitters have to
be certified which means taking a class, although they can do it online.
But they have to be paid at least minimum wage and in this area there is
just no demand for such things. If one is a dancer, they might be able to
get a job as an assistant if they are good enough. But at our studio, the
kid does not get paid. The parents just get a credit on their account. So
in this area there really isn't much for a kid to do in terms of work.

I also know how difficult it is for an older person to get a job. At least
a well paying job. Most employers are not motivated to hire them. Why
should they be? Older people tend to have more health problems and are
likely to die. Or get make mistakes because their brain isn't as sharp as
it once was.

"Michael Kuettner" > wrote in message
...
> Your nation wasn't founded on Christian principles.
> Your nation was founded by Calvinistic lunatics who were
> kicked out of Britain because they were slightly right to Cromwell
> and Attila the Hun.
> Slave - owners who invoked Jesus in every sentence; the good old USA.

I don't really care who founded it. What matters to me is what we have now.
And there are a heck of a lot of us who are not Christians.

"Casa Milagro" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/2/2014 12:21 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> "The Other Guy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 19:43:57 -0800, "Julie Bove"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> What is a food stamp?
>>>>>
>>>>> Welfare.
>>>>
>>>> Is it? I don't know. I never qualified for anything like that. I
>>>> always
>>>> thought they were two different things. Dunno.
>>>
>>> It is public assistance for those who need it,
>>> which to closed-minded fools equals welfare.
>>
>> I did look it up and apparently it is a part of welfare. But then
>> according to another site I looked at, Social Security is also welfare.
>> I fail to see how though.
>
> Simple:
>
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/welfare
>
> "Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people
> in need."

But Social Security isn't just provided to people in need. It is also
provided to people who are seniors and may also have money in the bank
and/or a pension.

"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:05:13 -0600, George Leppla
> > wrote:
>
>>On 1/1/2014 9:31 PM, wrote:
>>
>>> (Ridiculous long winded rant snipped.) No, it's not. Just this past
>>> Thanksgiving there was a story in our local newspaper WITH PICTURES
>>> taken at the local homeless shelter of the meal provided for the
>>> 'homeless and out of work.' No faces were shown just the rows of place
>>> sittings with full plates and next to m-a-n-y plates were smart phones,
>>> Blackberries, and iPhones, NO TracFones to be seen anywhere. So don't
>>> preach to me about how bigoted I am. If they're 'homeless and out of
>>> work' how are they able to pay for access each month?
>>
>>
>>
>>So in your world, people on welfare or food stamps or eating a meal at a
>>shelter should have to give up their cell phones in order to receive any
>>assistance?
>>
>>And of course, we have already heard from the "they buy junk food" crowd
>>so let's restrict food stamps to buying rice and beans and powdered milk.
>>
>>And we have also heard from the "they have a car" and the "they have a
>>TV" crowds so maybe before someone gets any assistance we should make
>>them sell their cars and TVs to buy food.
>
> I think they should have to work, if able bodied let them sweep the
> streets, do something, not just mooch.

Apparently in your part of the country there is a need for street sweepers.
That is not something we ever see here although once in a while you will see
a parking lot sweeper.

Makes no sense to just create some unneeded job and have someone go through
the motions just to justify giving them food or money or whatever. Because
not only do you have to create that job for them, but also someone to manage
them and others like them.

Fact is, fewer bodies are needed to do things these days. Automated
systems, computers, etc. They've all lessened the need for all those jobs.

> wrote in message
...
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 7:05:13 AM UTC-6, George L wrote:
>
> On 1/1/2014 9:31 PM, wrote:
>
>
> > (Ridiculous long winded rant snipped.) No, it's not. Just this past
> > Thanksgiving there was a story in our local newspaper WITH PICTURES
> > taken at the local homeless shelter of the meal provided for the
> > 'homeless and out of work.' No faces were shown just the rows of place
> > sittings with full plates and next to m-a-n-y plates were smart phones,
> > Blackberries, and iPhones, NO TracFones to be seen anywhere. So don't
> > preach to me about how bigoted I am. If they're 'homeless and out of
> > work' how are they able to pay for access each month?
>
>
> So in your world, people on welfare or food stamps or eating a meal at a
> shelter should have to give up their cell phones in order to receive any
> assistance?
>
>
I did not state they should give up their cell phones, no where in my post
did I state that so don't try to twist my words so you will feel righteous.
What I did say was people getting free meals who may or may not be homeless
or out of work but they can afford the latest and greatest phones with ALL
the bells and whistles. How can they afford these if they are so 'needy?'

Who says they can afford them? Who says they are even paying the bills?

> And of course, we have already heard from the "they buy junk food" crowd
> so let's restrict food stamps to buying rice and beans and powdered milk.
> And we have also heard from the "they have a car" and the "they have a
> TV" crowds so maybe before someone gets any assistance we should make
> them sell their cars and TVs to buy food.
>
>
Now you're just posting stupid stuff. But no, I don't think they should be
buying junk food but I don't think they should be buying powdered milk
either. If they want to buy junk, get a job! Buying a $20 pizza with food
stamps/EBT card is plain stupid. Grocery aren't cheap but $20 will buy
enough food for more than one meal which is what a pizza is. I'm only using
pizza as an example of some of the idiotic things many on the dole do.

---

Where do you live where a pizza is $20? You can get them for $5 here. Not
that I do. Can't remember the last time that I did order a pizza. But it
was a gluten free one. I know it wasn't cheap but probably not $20.


If people need assistance, then give it to them. And let it be. It's not
up to us to decide what they can spend it on.

This sounds like what I was going through with my MIL. I would take her
little things like from the dollar store. She liked having her grandkids
wheel her around through the nursing home where she would pass out the
things that I had given her. Other people in the family were upset by this
and told me that I was just wasting my money because she was giving the
things away. And I was like... So what? She is doing something that makes
her happy and in turn she is making other people happy! It's not like it
was costing me a lot of money to do this.

> But lets solve the problem by cutting the food stamp and welfare
> benefits for poor people.
>
>
No one said that but you.
>
>
> Christian nation my ass. Some of you should be ashamed of yourself.
>
> George L
>
>
No one said anything about this being a Christian nation but you, in fact
that's the first time that has come up in this discussion.

---

Yeah. And I don't really know what that has to do with anything.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:19:15 -0800 (PST), "
> > wrote:
>
>> I did not state they should give up their cell phones, no where in my
>> post did I state that so don't try to twist my words so you will feel
>> righteous. What I did say was people getting free meals who may or may
>> not be homeless or out of work but they can afford the latest and
>> greatest phones with ALL the bells and whistles. How can they afford
>> these if they are so 'needy?'
>
> The phones can be an older model and the plan inexpensive. Hubby has
> a plan that costs him $75 a year, mine is $35 a month (with data) and
> no contract.

Is that unlimited data? That seems very cheap. And how can you keep an
older model going? Any time I have had one that eventually needed a new
battery, the battery was no longer being made and I had to get a new phone.

"George Leppla" > wrote in message
...

> Her basic premise is that if you have a cell phone you are not needy. So
> I'm wondering, if you are homeless or out of work... how do you find a job
> without a phone? Walk into some business, fill out an application and say
> "Sorry, I don't have a phone but if you would like to interview me for a
> job, we can be found living under the 5th Street overpass?

I can tell you that this does not work. I was shocked to learn recently
that some people I had heard of (did not know them personally) were living
in a place called "Tent City". Some were even employed but not making a lot
of money.

Used to be that you needed a mailing address to get a job. These days you
need a computer or at least an email address and a phone number where you
can be reached.
>
> If you live in a city (like Sheldon did when he was a kid) there are
> probably 200+ businesses within a 15 minute walk of your home. Most
> people don't live like that any more. If you live in a suburban or rural
> area, you NEED a car if you are going to get a job.

Unless you happen to be lucky enough to live on a bus route and also find a
job on that same route. And you'd better hope that the hours that the bus
runs work with your job. Some of the buses here stop running at 9:00 p.m.
So if you have a late shift, good luck getting home!
>
> The idea that people who own a cell phone or have a ca aren't "needy
> enough" ****es me off to no end. 16 MILLION CHILDREN IN THE US LIVE IN
> HOMES WHERE THE INCOME IS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL! In the richest country
> in the world, that is a disgrace.

It truly is. People used to talk about this kid that my daughter went to
school with. Every morning he was dropped off at school in a cab. So they
assumed that the family was rich. Nope. Dad was a cab driver. And the only
way to get him to school on time was for dad to do that because nobody else
was at home to get the kid off to school. Mom is deceased.

We also can not assume that just because we see someone with a phone or a
car that they own it or are making payments on it. Lots of people who are
employed are given a phone for work. And even though they work, they might
still be low income. Someone may have given them a phone or is paying their
bill.

My friend's one grandson's mother is low income. She is the type that some
people here would talk about. The little I have been told about her family
does not sound good. I have lost track of how many kids she has had, most
with different fathers. She has never been married. Her son (the
grandson's dad) is himself unemployed and has only an 8th grade education.
He was not living with my friend at the time that the baby came about. She
had given custody to her ex for a variety of reasons. I'm sure I only know
the half of it and even at that I could write a novel on it. These things
happen!

The mother of this child who is the same age as my daughter (15) lives in
city that is far from here. She resorted to moving there because the rents
are cheaper. So my friend doesn't get to see her or her grandson often.
She did step in and force her son to pay child support when he was working.
But he got fired from that job. He has tried a variety of businesses and he
is active in the stock market so there is income but not necessarily good or
steady income. He has in fact moved back home with my friend, much to her
dismay.

So she has her hands full. She is old enough to be getting social security
and is also still working. Not a super low paying job but not high paying
either. She is also the same person with the adult daughter who is mentally
ill also living with her. And she took in her son's adult friend who said
he would pay rent for the room he is in but so far has not done so. He has
been able to do household repairs, he does do some cooking, buys parts for
things and groceries so she feels that he at least is somewhat earning his
keep.

But here she is in her golden years, feeling that she has to help all of
these people along financially. Her grandson's mom has one of those phone
plans where you pay for chunks of air time at a time. I do not know if it
is one of those low income phones or not but money can be added to the
account. So she adds $20 here and there to it. Plus she tries to buy
clothes her grandson and the other kids who are really no relation to her at
all. She tries to send food when she can. But her car is not all that
reliable so she has to wait until she can get another friend to drive her
out there.
>
> So let's cut off the food stamp programs that feed these kids because Mom
> has a cell phone and that is proof that she isn't "needy enough".
>
> Again... FACT... 83% of food stamp benefits go to families that have
> children or elderly. If you are healthy and able to work and have no
> dependents, the longest you can collect food stamps is 3 months. Funny
> how some people keep overlooking these facts because they are so outraged
> over a cell phone or how someone used food stamps to buy potato chips.

And many do overlook these facts.
>
> Sometimes people and their attitudes about the poor disgust me. I don't
> give a rat's ass if you are a Christian, Buddhist, Holy Roller, Atheist if
> you worship dead cats. If you are ANY kind of ethical or moral person at
> all, you don't quibble about helping the poor. Period.

I always try to help the poor. I was once poor myself. But I also try not
to be stupid about it. I have seen enough people begging who then bought
drugs or liquor with the money. Not that I am judging. If I were to give
money, I would just walk away and not think about it again. However, I had
also been asked not to give money or even items that could be returned to
the store because this person has a drug problem. I wrongly assumed that
things had gotten better and sent this person a check for a holiday. I knew
I had made a mistake when the check cashing place that he went to called me
to make certain that I had in fact sent him a check. Okay then. No more
checks. And sadly he has sunk even further into the world of drugs and
fathering two kids along the way. His mother has custody of the older child
and hopefully will not have to take custody of the other. Each child has a
different mother.

Should the older kid have to go hungry because she has a dad who is
irresponsible? Or worse yet, a mother who is sooo irresponsible that she
just doesn't even care about her or where she is? The grandmother of these
kids hasn't got much money. Her husband ran off with another woman, leaving
her with an older child in the house who was at least old enough to get a
job because dad never paid child support.

These sorts of things happen. There is no way to stop them. This woman
does work but it took her a long time to find a new job. She'd had a good
one at her husband's place of business. She had her own office in there.
But when he left, he locked her out and she was no longer able to work
there. She did not have the finances saved up to rent office space
elsewhere and her ex also had all of her paperwork, equipment, etc. That
was a whole nasty nest of worms.

Eventually someone took pity on her and offered her a job. But the job
doesn't pay as much as she needs and she is an older person. She should be
able to get social security fairly soon. She also had a variety of health
problems that left her further in the hole financially. She is getting some
kind of assistance but I think it is only for child care. I don't know all
of the particulars because these people live in a different state.

Things like this are going on all around us. We just don't always know it.
Not everyone you see who needs assistance is a bad or lazy person.
Sometimes they just need help.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/2/2014 6:26 PM, Michael OConnor wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the most flagrant abuse I have ever seen of the food stamp system
>> was by the video of the now-deceased rapper Ol Dirty *******, or ODB, who
>> was quite wealthy, showing up in a limo with an MTV camera crew in tow,
>> to pick up his monthly supply of food stamps.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrvnLpLjTuA
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrvnLpLjTuA
>>
>
> Looks more like a publicity stunt just to get people upset.

That's what I was thinking.

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 22:47:17 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On 1/2/2014 2:03 PM, George Leppla wrote:
>
> > The problem with Sheldon's argument is that it assumes that the people
> > on food stamps or welfare are "able bodied" when in fact, most people
> > are children or the elderly.
> >
> > http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fig...realities.aspx
> >
> >
> > or http://tinyurl.com/6ncmdtb
> >
> > "76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a
> > disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP
> > benefits."
> >
> > "The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744"
> >
>
> That still leaves 24% that are able bodied and can do some work. How
> about 4 hours a week at the town parks department? Or at a hospital?
>
Where are the jobs? Are the republicans going to approve "make work"
money to hire them? If they were willing to do that, we'd have many
more people than that paltry amount back at work repairing our
infrastructure. Government makes work and THAT'S the money that
"trickles down", not the tax breaks given to billionaires and multi
national corporations.
>
> >
> > As for the argument that we are raising generations of welfare
> > families... here is the fact:
> >
> > "SNAP already has strict time-limits for unemployed workers. Able-bodied
> > adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP
> > benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a
> > qualifying job training program.

Yeah? Who is going to pay for those programs and have jobs ready for
the training graduates to fill? Republicans seems to be against any
and all of the above.
>
>
> I know of at least two people that are able bodied and have been getting
> SNAP benefits for over two years. They do fill out some forms
> periodically to remain qualified. Evidently there are loopholes.
>
Oh, gee whiz. Able bodied does not mean there are jobs going
unfilled.
>
>
> > So you guys just keep watching Fox news and whining about how the poor
> > are bleeding you dry and while you do that,
>
> I don't watch Fox news, but I see some real life situations. Some people
> need and deserve help, others abuse the system. A few bad ones make
> many look bad.
>
>
You're seeing what you want to see, not reality.
>
>
> the Bankers, Wall Street
> > moguls and the Corporate Tax breaks and subsidies are emptying out our
> > country's bank accounts.
>
> That may be true, but it is not related to the welfare and food stamp
> leeches.


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 08:44:30 -0800 (PST), Christopher Helms wrote:
>
>
>> They work for pretty much anything that you can put in your mouth,
>> except toothpaste. As long as its food and the retailer accepts EBT
>> you're good to go.
>
> Yet another uninformed asshole.
>
>> That's in Indiana. Different states may be allowed to tweak their
>> respective programs to some degree.
>
> Bullshit. The USDA provides the funds for EBT food stamps and the
> rules are Federal.

Yes. I did look it up. It did say some exceptions are made for seniors and
disabled people but I think that only applied to the hot food.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:47:10 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> Not exactly. You can buy cooked food that is cold, but you can't buy a
>> hot ready to rat meal. You can buy bread and lunch meat, but you can't
>> buy a sandwich.
>
> You can buy pre-made cold sandwiches. That footlong in the deli case
> at Walmart is fine, but that cold cut combo at Subway is not. There's
> also some rule about having dine-in service (which would exclude
> Subway but not Papa Murphys).

I also read that you can not buy a frozen burrito and microwave it in the
store to eat it there.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/2/2014 2:03 PM, George Leppla wrote:
>
>> The problem with Sheldon's argument is that it assumes that the people
>> on food stamps or welfare are "able bodied" when in fact, most people
>> are children or the elderly.
>>
>> http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fig...realities.aspx
>>
>>
>> or http://tinyurl.com/6ncmdtb
>>
>> "76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a
>> disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP
>> benefits."
>>
>> "The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744"
>>
>
> That still leaves 24% that are able bodied and can do some work. How
> about 4 hours a week at the town parks department? Or at a hospital?

Interesting that they don't post a statistic about how many SNAP households
included an adult sufficiently able bodied to work.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 22:47:17 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On 1/2/2014 2:03 PM, George Leppla wrote:
>>
>> > The problem with Sheldon's argument is that it assumes that the people
>> > on food stamps or welfare are "able bodied" when in fact, most people
>> > are children or the elderly.
>> >
>> > http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fig...realities.aspx
>> >
>> >
>> > or http://tinyurl.com/6ncmdtb
>> >
>> > "76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a
>> > disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP
>> > benefits."
>> >
>> > "The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744"
>> >
>>
>> That still leaves 24% that are able bodied and can do some work. How
>> about 4 hours a week at the town parks department? Or at a hospital?
>>
> Where are the jobs?

ask the millions of illegal aliens. They seem to find them.

On 1/2/2014 9:47 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>
> the Bankers, Wall Street
>> >moguls and the Corporate Tax breaks and subsidies are emptying out our
>> >country's bank accounts.
> That may be true, but it is not related to the welfare and food stamp
> leeches.
>

You don't think that it shows that our priorities are out of whack?

George L

In article >,
Julie Bove > wrote:
>
>"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:05:13 -0600, George Leppla
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On 1/1/2014 9:31 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>>> (Ridiculous long winded rant snipped.) No, it's not. Just this past
>>>> Thanksgiving there was a story in our local newspaper WITH PICTURES
>>>> taken at the local homeless shelter of the meal provided for the
>>>> 'homeless and out of work.' No faces were shown just the rows of place
>>>> sittings with full plates and next to m-a-n-y plates were smart phones,
>>>> Blackberries, and iPhones, NO TracFones to be seen anywhere. So don't
>>>> preach to me about how bigoted I am. If they're 'homeless and out of
>>>> work' how are they able to pay for access each month?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So in your world, people on welfare or food stamps or eating a meal at a
>>>shelter should have to give up their cell phones in order to receive any
>>>assistance?
>>>
>>>And of course, we have already heard from the "they buy junk food" crowd
>>>so let's restrict food stamps to buying rice and beans and powdered milk.
>>>
>>>And we have also heard from the "they have a car" and the "they have a
>>>TV" crowds so maybe before someone gets any assistance we should make
>>>them sell their cars and TVs to buy food.
>>
>> I think they should have to work, if able bodied let them sweep the
>> streets, do something, not just mooch.
>
>Apparently in your part of the country there is a need for street sweepers.
>That is not something we ever see here although once in a while you will see
>a parking lot sweeper.
>
>Makes no sense to just create some unneeded job and have someone go through
>the motions just to justify giving them food or money or whatever. Because
>not only do you have to create that job for them, but also someone to manage
>them and others like them.
>
>Fact is, fewer bodies are needed to do things these days. Automated
>systems, computers, etc. They've all lessened the need for all those jobs.

So? People need jobs. If I were Tyrant of the United States, everybody
on the public tit would have to work. The jobs would be just sufficiently
unpleasant (e.g., sorting recyclables) as to provide incentive to really
work at training for better jobs. Meaningful day care would be provided
for their children, to indoctrinate them in the value of work and break
the cycle of poverty.

Cindy Hamilton
--

"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Julie Bove > wrote:
>>
>>"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:05:13 -0600, George Leppla
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 1/1/2014 9:31 PM, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> (Ridiculous long winded rant snipped.) No, it's not. Just this past
>>>>> Thanksgiving there was a story in our local newspaper WITH PICTURES
>>>>> taken at the local homeless shelter of the meal provided for the
>>>>> 'homeless and out of work.' No faces were shown just the rows of place
>>>>> sittings with full plates and next to m-a-n-y plates were smart
>>>>> phones,
>>>>> Blackberries, and iPhones, NO TracFones to be seen anywhere. So don't
>>>>> preach to me about how bigoted I am. If they're 'homeless and out of
>>>>> work' how are they able to pay for access each month?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So in your world, people on welfare or food stamps or eating a meal at a
>>>>shelter should have to give up their cell phones in order to receive any
>>>>assistance?
>>>>
>>>>And of course, we have already heard from the "they buy junk food" crowd
>>>>so let's restrict food stamps to buying rice and beans and powdered
>>>>milk.
>>>>
>>>>And we have also heard from the "they have a car" and the "they have a
>>>>TV" crowds so maybe before someone gets any assistance we should make
>>>>them sell their cars and TVs to buy food.
>>>
>>> I think they should have to work, if able bodied let them sweep the
>>> streets, do something, not just mooch.
>>
>>Apparently in your part of the country there is a need for street
>>sweepers.
>>That is not something we ever see here although once in a while you will
>>see
>>a parking lot sweeper.
>>
>>Makes no sense to just create some unneeded job and have someone go
>>through
>>the motions just to justify giving them food or money or whatever.
>>Because
>>not only do you have to create that job for them, but also someone to
>>manage
>>them and others like them.
>>
>>Fact is, fewer bodies are needed to do things these days. Automated
>>systems, computers, etc. They've all lessened the need for all those
>>jobs.
>
> So? People need jobs. If I were Tyrant of the United States, everybody
> on the public tit would have to work. The jobs would be just sufficiently
> unpleasant (e.g., sorting recyclables) as to provide incentive to really
> work at training for better jobs. Meaningful day care would be provided
> for their children, to indoctrinate them in the value of work and break
> the cycle of poverty.

Here too!!!!!

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 14:26:37 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

> In article >,
> Julie Bove > wrote:
> >
> >"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:05:13 -0600, George Leppla
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>So in your world, people on welfare or food stamps or eating a meal at a
> >>>shelter should have to give up their cell phones in order to receive any
> >>>assistance?
> >>>
> >>>And of course, we have already heard from the "they buy junk food" crowd
> >>>so let's restrict food stamps to buying rice and beans and powdered milk.
> >>>
> >>>And we have also heard from the "they have a car" and the "they have a
> >>>TV" crowds so maybe before someone gets any assistance we should make
> >>>them sell their cars and TVs to buy food.
> >>
> >> I think they should have to work, if able bodied let them sweep the
> >> streets, do something, not just mooch.
> >
> >Apparently in your part of the country there is a need for street sweepers.
> >That is not something we ever see here although once in a while you will see
> >a parking lot sweeper.
> >
> >Makes no sense to just create some unneeded job and have someone go through
> >the motions just to justify giving them food or money or whatever. Because
> >not only do you have to create that job for them, but also someone to manage
> >them and others like them.
> >
> >Fact is, fewer bodies are needed to do things these days. Automated
> >systems, computers, etc. They've all lessened the need for all those jobs.
>
> So? People need jobs. If I were Tyrant of the United States, everybody
> on the public tit would have to work. The jobs would be just sufficiently
> unpleasant (e.g., sorting recyclables) as to provide incentive to really
> work at training for better jobs. Meaningful day care would be provided
> for their children, to indoctrinate them in the value of work and break
> the cycle of poverty.
>
Where are those jobs they will supposedly be training for coming from
and how do you boost all the underemployed people who are in the
unskilled labor jobs just to put food on the table?

The trickle down theory is working, but not in the way Republicans
claim it should. Wall Street screwed Main Street, Main Streeters lost
their jobs on Main Street and housing in the suburbs, so they pushed
the Side Streeters out of their jobs and housing. Oh, yeah. It's
trickling down alright.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

In article >,
sf > wrote:
>>
>Where are those jobs they will supposedly be training for coming from
>and how do you boost all the underemployed people who are in the
>unskilled labor jobs just to put food on the table?

I'll be the Tyrant of the United States. Quit bothering me
with petty details, or I'll have you hung upside-down in the
scorpion pit.

>The trickle down theory is working, but not in the way Republicans
>claim it should. Wall Street screwed Main Street, Main Streeters lost
>their jobs on Main Street and housing in the suburbs, so they pushed
>the Side Streeters out of their jobs and housing. Oh, yeah. It's
>trickling down alright.

I believe in trickle up. The middle class is the best thing that
ever happened to this country.

Cindy Hamilton
--

On 1/3/2014 2:42 AM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 22:47:17 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On 1/2/2014 2:03 PM, George Leppla wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with Sheldon's argument is that it assumes that the people
>>> on food stamps or welfare are "able bodied" when in fact, most people
>>> are children or the elderly.
>>>
>>> http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fig...realities.aspx
>>>
>>>
>>> or http://tinyurl.com/6ncmdtb
>>>
>>> "76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a
>>> disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP
>>> benefits."
>>>
>>> "The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744"
>>>
>>
>> That still leaves 24% that are able bodied and can do some work. How
>> about 4 hours a week at the town parks department? Or at a hospital?
>>
> Where are the jobs? Are the republicans going to approve "make work"
> money to hire them?

I did not say hire them. They are getting SNAP benefits and this would
allow them to do some work to pay back for the freebies. Used to have
workfare programs but they were shot down a few years ago.





If they were willing to do that, we'd have many
> more people than that paltry amount back at work repairing our
> infrastructure. Government makes work and THAT'S the money that
> "trickles down", not the tax breaks given to billionaires and multi
> national corporations.

Go after the elected officials that legislated those breaks. Don't just
blame republicans, both parties are guilty. Very guilty.


>>
>>>
>>> As for the argument that we are raising generations of welfare
>>> families... here is the fact:
>>>
>>> "SNAP already has strict time-limits for unemployed workers. Able-bodied
>>> adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP
>>> benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a
>>> qualifying job training program.
>
> Yeah? Who is going to pay for those programs and have jobs ready for
> the training graduates to fill? Republicans seems to be against any
> and all of the above.

When the Dems had power in both houses they did no better. All reps in
Washington should be voted out.



>>
>>
>> I know of at least two people that are able bodied and have been getting
>> SNAP benefits for over two years. They do fill out some forms
>> periodically to remain qualified. Evidently there are loopholes.
>>
> Oh, gee whiz. Able bodied does not mean there are jobs going
> unfilled.

These guy would not know because they are not actively seeking a job.
They are content with status quo.



>> I don't watch Fox news, but I see some real life situations. Some people
>> need and deserve help, others abuse the system. A few bad ones make
>> many look bad.
>>
>>
> You're seeing what you want to see, not reality.

Real life is reality. It is not what the news is (or not) reporting.

On 1/3/2014 8:43 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
>


>>> or http://tinyurl.com/6ncmdtb
>>>
>>> "76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a
>>> disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP
>>> benefits."
>>>
>>> "The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744"
>>>
>>
>> That still leaves 24% that are able bodied and can do some work. How
>> about 4 hours a week at the town parks department? Or at a hospital?
>
> Interesting that they don't post a statistic about how many SNAP households
> included an adult sufficiently able bodied to work.
>
>

There used to be workfare programs but they were stopped years ago.
Forget the details but some bleeding hearts thought it unjust to make
people work for benefits.

On 1/3/2014 12:57 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>


>
> But Social Security isn't just provided to people in need. It is also
> provided to people who are seniors and may also have money in the bank
> and/or a pension.

Social Security was designed to be a retirement program that workers pay
into all their working life. After paying in for 50+ years you can take
out even if you have money in the bank or other pension. If you want to
retire, you had better have more than just SS to live on.

Disclosu I have money in the bank and a 401(k), still working and
I'm getting an SS check every month.

On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 11:28:55 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On 1/3/2014 2:42 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 22:47:17 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/2/2014 2:03 PM, George Leppla wrote:
> >>
> >>> The problem with Sheldon's argument is that it assumes that the people
> >>> on food stamps or welfare are "able bodied" when in fact, most people
> >>> are children or the elderly.
> >>>
> >>> http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fig...realities.aspx
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> or http://tinyurl.com/6ncmdtb
> >>>
> >>> "76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a
> >>> disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP
> >>> benefits."
> >>>
> >>> "The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744"
> >>>
> >>
> >> That still leaves 24% that are able bodied and can do some work. How
> >> about 4 hours a week at the town parks department? Or at a hospital?
> >>
> > Where are the jobs? Are the republicans going to approve "make work"
> > money to hire them?
>
> I did not say hire them. They are getting SNAP benefits and this would
> allow them to do some work to pay back for the freebies. Used to have
> workfare programs but they were shot down a few years ago.
>
What J-O-B-S do you propose and how do you expect them to be
supervised without creating more jobs?
>
>
> If they were willing to do that, we'd have many
> > more people than that paltry amount back at work repairing our
> > infrastructure. Government makes work and THAT'S the money that
> > "trickles down", not the tax breaks given to billionaires and multi
> > national corporations.
>
> Go after the elected officials that legislated those breaks. Don't just
> blame republicans, both parties are guilty. Very guilty.
>
Yeah, sure. Democrats brought the country to the brink of destruction
more than once during 2013, decided to drug test poor people and
government employees, require vaginal ultrasound before an abortion
and cut off unemployment benefits at Christmas.
>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> As for the argument that we are raising generations of welfare
> >>> families... here is the fact:
> >>>
> >>> "SNAP already has strict time-limits for unemployed workers. Able-bodied
> >>> adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP
> >>> benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a
> >>> qualifying job training program.
> >
> > Yeah? Who is going to pay for those programs and have jobs ready for
> > the training graduates to fill? Republicans seems to be against any
> > and all of the above.
>
> When the Dems had power in both houses they did no better. All reps in
> Washington should be voted out.
>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> I know of at least two people that are able bodied and have been getting
> >> SNAP benefits for over two years. They do fill out some forms
> >> periodically to remain qualified. Evidently there are loopholes.
> >>
> > Oh, gee whiz. Able bodied does not mean there are jobs going
> > unfilled.
>
> These guy would not know because they are not actively seeking a job.
> They are content with status quo.
>
I sincerely doubt it. Try living on SNAP for 6 months and tell me how
happy *you* are with the status quo.
>
>
> >> I don't watch Fox news, but I see some real life situations. Some people
> >> need and deserve help, others abuse the system. A few bad ones make
> >> many look bad.
> >>
> >>
> > You're seeing what you want to see, not reality.
>
> Real life is reality. It is not what the news is (or not) reporting.
>
>
Again, you're seeing what you want to see from up in your ivory tower
and it's not reality.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 11:34:59 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On 1/3/2014 8:43 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
> >
>
>
> >>> or http://tinyurl.com/6ncmdtb
> >>>
> >>> "76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a
> >>> disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP
> >>> benefits."
> >>>
> >>> "The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744"
> >>>
> >>
> >> That still leaves 24% that are able bodied and can do some work. How
> >> about 4 hours a week at the town parks department? Or at a hospital?
> >
> > Interesting that they don't post a statistic about how many SNAP households
> > included an adult sufficiently able bodied to work.
> >
> >
>
> There used to be workfare programs but they were stopped years ago.
> Forget the details but some bleeding hearts thought it unjust to make
> people work for benefits.

Bleeding hearts were just fine with it. Conservatives thought it took
jobs away from hard working "Mericans".

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 1/3/2014 10:52 AM, sf wrote:
>> >There used to be workfare programs but they were stopped years ago.
>> >Forget the details but some bleeding hearts thought it unjust to make
>> >people work for benefits.

> Bleeding hearts were just fine with it. Conservatives thought it took
> jobs away from hard working "Mericans".


Yep. FWIW... I don't have any problem with able bodied people on food
stamps or welfare working at civic jobs. But... seems that the
government employees didn't like that these "free laborers" were going
to be doing jobs that were normally done by government workers. Fewer
janitors, painters, park clean-up crew. I remember on case where a guy
was going to lose his job of painting fire hydrants.

Add to that the cost of administering the "work fare" program or
supplying qualified day care for the children of these people and you
ended up with a program that no one liked and cost more money than it saved.

George L

On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 16:28:21 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
> >>
> >Where are those jobs they will supposedly be training for coming from
> >and how do you boost all the underemployed people who are in the
> >unskilled labor jobs just to put food on the table?
>
> I'll be the Tyrant of the United States. Quit bothering me
> with petty details, or I'll have you hung upside-down in the
> scorpion pit.
>

YEOW!!! Okay, I promise to behave.

> >The trickle down theory is working, but not in the way Republicans
> >claim it should. Wall Street screwed Main Street, Main Streeters lost
> >their jobs on Main Street and housing in the suburbs, so they pushed
> >the Side Streeters out of their jobs and housing. Oh, yeah. It's
> >trickling down alright.
>
> I believe in trickle up. The middle class is the best thing that
> ever happened to this country.
>
Me too. A strong middle class encourages entrepreneurship which
creates JOBS and in turn, strengthens the economy.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 1/3/2014 10:51 AM, sf wrote:
>>> Oh, gee whiz. Able bodied does not mean there are jobs going
>>> > >unfilled.
>> >
>> >These guy would not know because they are not actively seeking a job.
>> >They are content with status quo.
>> >
> I sincerely doubt it. Try living on SNAP for 6 months and tell me how
> happy*you* are with the status quo.



The average SNAP benefit is $133 pp a month... or about $1.50 per
person, per meal. Anyone care to volunteer to limit their food purchases
to $133 a month and tell us how well you were able to eat?

Oh, I have no doubt that a person could survive on that amount, assuming
they are smart shoppers and have the knowledge and equipment to cook.
But let's face it, this is going to be a diet short on protein and fresh
vegetables and long on starches. And lets face another fact... many poor
people don't have the education, knowledge or experience to make good
food choices with this kind of limited budget.

Again, 16+ million kids in this country below poverty level and not one
of the opponents of food stamps in this discussion has offered a way to
help them.

George L