That's not the point. The point is that poor people should never have any nice things whatsoever. They should live in such a way as to constantly remind the rest of us that our lives are better than theirs.
Exactly. They dont need to have the same internet speed as me or the jays i was wearing last year. That pisses me off. It reminds me that i am barely not poor enough to be poor enough for food stamps. The line has to be clear. You poor you wear nothing but white ts and shoes i dont see at the shoe store i browse in.
The Facts about Food Stamps Everyone Should Hear Posted By Rachel Sheffield On May 27, 2013 @ 12:00 pm A recent US News & World Report [2] article set out to unveil the “facts” about food stamps. What are the so-called “facts”? For one, the article claims that the food stamps program is not “bloated,” but rather, the surge in participation and spending is a result of the program “doing what it’s supposed to do.” But what is it “supposed to do”? Food stamps (or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), as it is now called) were designed to ensure that Americans without the ability to provide for themselves are able to receive basic nutrition. However, application loopholes and policy changes [3] over the past decade or so have allowed recipients to bypass income and asset tests, meaning many people are receiving food stamps who would not have been eligible under the program’s original purposes. One of the changes in eligibility requirements is “broad-based categorical eligibility.” This type of eligibility means that an individual who receives any service under another welfare program, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)—even something as small as a TANF brochure—can be deemed eligible for food stamps. A full 50 percent of all food stamp recipients now enroll in the program through this broad-based categorical eligibility procedure. As Heritage welfare experts Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley write [3]: In states using this loophole, a middle-class family with one earner who becomes unemployed for one or two months can receive $668 per month in food stamps even if the family has $20,000 in cash sitting in the bank. Because of this, food stamps has been transformed from a program for the truly needy to a routine bonus payment stacked on top of conventional unemployment benefits. In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has operated substantial outreach programs [4] to pull more people onto the food stamp rolls. Some states have gone so far as to hire food stamp recruiters [5], tasked with filling a monthly quota of new food stamp enrollees. Another “fact,” according to the author, is that much of the growth in food stamp costs is due to the recession and is temporary. That’s partially true. Food stamp spending has roughly doubled in the past four years, and part of this is clearly due to the recession. However, food stamp spending has been on an upward climb [3] since the program began back in the 1960s. In the decade prior to the recession, total government food stamp spending nearly doubled, from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 billion in 2007.[6] Moreover, according to Obama’s budget plans, food stamp spending will not return to pre-recession levels when the economy improves. “For most of the next decade, food stamp spending, adjusted for inflation and population growth, would remain at nearly twice the levels seen during the non-recessionary periods under President Bill Clinton,” note Rector and Bradley. What’s more, food stamps are just one of roughly 80 federally funded means-tested welfare programs [3]. The total cost of government welfare spending has been on a nearly continual climb over the past five decades and has increased 16-fold, to nearly $1 trillion annually, since the 1960s. Welfare is the fastest growing part of government spending, and under Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget, total welfare spending will permanently increase [3] from 4.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 6 percent of GDP. US News & World Report also suggests as a “fact” that most food stamp recipients work. However, a significant portion of able-bodied recipients of food stamps perform little to no work. Of the roughly 10.5 million households receiving food stamps containing an able-bodied, non-elderly adult (there are approximately 20 million households receiving food stamps total), more than half—5.5 million—performed no work during a given month in 2010. Another 1.5 million to 2 million performed fewer than 30 hours of work per week. This isn’t unique to the recession, but is typical even during good economic times. The food stamp program is just one of dozens that comprise the complex system of federal means-tested welfare programs. Instead of continuing to pour more dollars into these programs, which have failed to promote self-sufficiency, policymakers should roll back aggregate spending on means-tested welfare to pre-recession levels when employment recovers. Likewise, programs like food stamps should be reformed to promote self-reliance through work, empowering individuals and families to become free from government dependence. Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2013/05/27/the-facts-about-food-stamps-everyone-should-hear/ URLs in this post: [1] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/foodstamps-EBT.jpg [2] US News & World Report: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...amp-program-has-a-strong-record-of-efficienty [3] application loopholes and policy changes: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/07/reforming-the-food-stamp-program [4] outreach programs: http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...d6b41c-a3a4-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html [5] hire food stamp recruiters: http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/30/uncle-sam-wants-you-on-food-stamps/ [6] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Bfoodstampreform2012chart1.gif
That's also part of the problem -- it costs more to eat healthy, and there are fewer healthy-eating outlets in poor neighborhoods. So, people who struggle to afford putting food on the table are more likely to buy unhealthy foods that contribute to obesity and other health problems. Food choices are driving obesity, not so much the volume consumed.
I appreciate your argument about lack of healthy options in poor neighborhoods. Would that go along with why Planned Parenthood likes to open its facilities in poor neighborhoods?
As for Planned Parenthood it's probably because there is a greater need for the breast cancer exams, and health concerns there.
Pro-Life Leaders: Planned Parenthood Abortion Numbers Tell Misleading Story Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/p...l-misleading-story-88693/#vs2JzAoyBKETOcpr.99
Abortion is only a small percentage of what Planned Parenthood does. In fact it's only about 3% of what it does. So 97% of what they do isn't really controversial and help with health issues and are important to women and our society at large.
No I read it, I just didn't see how the claim of the way they bundle the appointments was proven or shown conclusively. I understand that's the claim. I just don't believe that the article posted does a good job of sustaining the claim they're making. There are so many claims in there that are completely over the top such as the idea that the goal of PP is to have more abortions. If that was the goal they wouldn't be giving out birth control. The article is full of that kind of nonsense.
Please see, Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader's Eye-Opening Journey Across the Line
The only poster in the history of the internets that reads Christian Post.com and The Middle East Media Research Institute.
I'm really bored by your complete implosion as anything credible so I'm just going to add you to ignore. Good luck with the trolling. kthanxbai
Food stamps are out of control. I think I am the only one at my grocery store that doesn't pay with them. I then follow them out and they get into cars nicer and more expensive than mine. Every time I go shopping, same thing.
How could they afford a car like that if nobody was there to pay for the basics for them? Come on man, people are entitled to free food, free housing, free phones, free healthcare, free money, but they haven't started handing out nice cars yet. Obama needs to get busy and get folks some cars.
