Zorkorist
Diamond Member
- Apr 17, 2007
- 6,861
- 3
- 76
Those are so far above normal peoples needs, that only Government could mandate Health Care or Transportation.So you want people to have no health care or transportation?
-John
Those are so far above normal peoples needs, that only Government could mandate Health Care or Transportation.So you want people to have no health care or transportation?
Except democrats have destroyed the family and marriage. So your family of three is husband/wife/kid.
This was the goal all along, destroy the family unit of husband and wife and make folks dependent on government money.
Fuck be upon Obama.
We cannot afford this, infohawk, morally or fiscally.
You seem ready and willing to avoid the moral dilema, and continue paying folks for doing nothing, but yet you take arms against paying illegal alliens for doing something?!
-John
Food stamps are obviously for the non-working, under-class of American Society.
Now, go back and re-read original posters post.
-John
Yeah, it more or less does.The OP is terrible. Food stamps are often used by the working poor. It is a fact of life. A job does not guarantee that you can make ends meet.
Barney,
Are you serious? Cause you just gave me a big lol.
Of course it starts with shelter..
then food,
then clothing,
utilities,
misc expenses...
THEN you get to health care, or gas.
-John
On the other hand, Government dependents;Yeah, it more or less does.
If you have a job, you will live, eat, and have shelter.
You can pay for utilities, and misc expenses.
YOU CANNOT PAY $300 for insurance, lol.
YOU CANNOT PAY $100 for gas, lol.
-John
Ah, fake money, ain't it grand?On the other hand, Government dependents;
get food stamps,
government housing,
education and transportation credits,
insurance credits,
health care,
etc.
-John
On the other hand, Government dependents;
get food stamps,
government housing,
education and transportation credits,
insurance credits,
health care,
etc.
-John
Can't forget about the Earned Income Credit.Don't forget about Earn Income Credit.
If anything, one full time job should be enough to sustain a family of 3.
this might have been true in 1950. since then, women have decided to enter the workforce and wanted to be treated the same. nowadays, you need two incomes to be socioeconomically equal to what the man brought home in 1950.
congrats women, you got what you wanted: to be treated the same. now you have to work for a living like the man, alongside the man.
the idea of the man bringing home the bacon is a figment of the past.
No you dont, you can easily live a similar lifestyle on one income now as you did then. Problem is poor people now complain that their cellphone doesnt get enough text messages, their cable doesnt get ESPN14, their house only has 4 bathrooms, and their 2nd car cant tow the boat.
Uh, lack of jobs. If you see help wanted signs everywhere, consider your area a lucky one. Over half the jobs I've gotten interviews for over the last couple years ended up being retracted, and some (un?)lucky SOB got more responsibility without more pay, instead of someone (me, please?) being hired. So, it's short-term this, short-term that, whittle the account on down, short-term something else, find that my unemployment put household income over the limit for food stamps (yeah, I tried), and so on. On the negative side, I've all but given up on finding a real job, and it's generally depressing as hell searching, as I could keep money for longer by not doing so, as it has generally cost me more than it has made. There's some work, but very little in the way of a traditional job (IE, known regular paycheck). On the positive side, I'm trying to become one of those, "made a home-based business because the job market sucks sweaty monkey balls," statistics. Worst case, I should lose about as much money as job hunting (seriously, local job searching is expensive, and networking and Craigslist have gotten me my best paying short-term gigs). Best case will be that I have an excuse to lose many times that, in hopes of a profit in some distant futureSo some bitch is taking food stamps and complaing about it while living under mOm's roof?
Get a fucking job! If that one isn't good enough, then get another one!
What the hell is wrong with these people?
$24/mouth/week is not toughing it out, unless you live a very high COL area, or have a special diet that genuinely precludes common affordable foods. $24/week for one person should allow for good food, even being picky about quality (I'm a gourmand with allergies and chemical sensitivities, and I don't spend that much, unless you count fuel). For 10 people, with per-unit discounts in play, that should be some mighty good eats. Huevos rancheros, FI, made for several people, should be south of $1/person, and is a nutrition-packed delicious breakfast or lunch meal. Swap it up with oatmeal for extra savings to put towards meaty dinners.Well depends on who you talk to. Some new immigrants will tell you they can feed a family of 10 on $240 a week. Compare to where they come from, that's already decent money and they know how to tough it out. For other American with their entitlement attitude, $240 is of course not enough with their daily steak and lobster dinners.
Before that, it was an an uninvolved government letting employers get away with too much, shitty working conditions, shitty living conditions, and pollution. Of course, pollution still kills American workers. Sorry about your libertarian dream world, but back here in reality, the American worker got screwed by those that paid him, and then decided to not care and screw himself and his children, too.It was Government Regulation. Unionization, Taxation, and Environmentalism, that killed the American worker.
-John
Women becoming a major part of the peacetime workforce may have diluted the value of male work some, but movers and shakers giving up long-term health for short-term profits, the war on poverty, and the Joneses* blindly daydreaming about never-ending prosperity and American Exceptionalism, are what really did it.this might have been true in 1950. since then, women have decided to enter the workforce and wanted to be treated the same. nowadays, you need two incomes to be socioeconomically equal to what the man brought home in 1950.
congrats women, you got what you wanted: to be treated the same. now you have to work for a living like the man, alongside the man.
the idea of the man bringing home the bacon is a figment of the past.
I'm also seeing a trend in the article. They're picking people in NY and CA, the highest cost of living areas in the nation. The eventual path of democrat policies.
Can't afford to live there? Fucking move.
So you recognize that it's a problem that people are forced to work jobs that pay less than living wage? How do you propose we make it so people don't have to stay long term in non-living wage jobs?
Here's my proposal. Make it illegal to pay less than a living wage. Problem solved.
Typical rightwing "welfare queen driving Caddillac" nonsense.
So some bitch is taking food stamps and complaing about it while living under mOm's roof?
Get a fucking job! If that one isn't good enough, then get another one!
What the hell is wrong with these people?
