The Lazy Poor

[PoliticalChic]

Ever notice that PC complains incessantly about the poor and the welfare state that assists them,

but NEVER offers a better way to do things?

I bet she's also against abortion and Planned Parenthood funding, but at the same time doesn't want her taxes to go to welfare for women who cannot support their children otherwise. These far righties are so out of touch with reality.

I bet you're ready to join the Anti-Mensa Society.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This thread is even further proof that what conservatives really want is to make the poor poorer and the rich richer.

There is nothing in the conservative view of economic policy as it relates to rich and poor that does not strive for that goal.

 

[Agit8r]

You really know nothing, huh?

How do you find your way back to the refrigerator-box you call home?


"Determined to destroy Bill Clinton’s signature achievement, President Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

On Thursday of last week, HHS issued regulations that modified — gutted — the work requirement. Its new regulations allow the states to substitute education programs for work to get welfare benefits."

Read more: Obama kills welfare reform - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Dick Morris is an opportunist and a hack

FactCheck.org : Does Obama?s Plan ?Gut Welfare Reform??

Hack?

That would describe not only you.....but your Liberal 'source':

Fact-Check: a political fact-checking website created by the St. Petersburg Times, which endorsed Obama in '08.
'In 2003, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the St. Petersburg Times as a "usually liberal" newspaper.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times


Morris is 100% correct.

The Heritage Foundation explains that:
“Section 415(a)(2)(B) of the welfare reform act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 615(a)(2)(B), expressly states that ‘a waiver granted under section 1315 of this title [the one that HHS now claims it is acting under] or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on Sept. 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 607 of this title [which applies the work requirements] to the State.’ In short, whatever else might be said of the scope of the waiver authority, the Secretary has no lawful authority to waive the work requirements of section 607, which is what HHS is contemplating in its Memorandum.”

Debunked. The states wanted to try different things that they thought would put people back to work more efficiently. Laboratories for democracy and all that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ever notice that PC complains incessantly about the poor and the welfare state that assists them,

but NEVER offers a better way to do things?

I bet she's also against abortion and Planned Parenthood funding, but at the same time doesn't want her taxes to go to welfare for women who cannot support their children otherwise. These far righties are so out of touch with reality.

First of all she doesn't pay income taxes because she doesn't have a job.

 

[Agit8r]

This thread is even further proof that what conservatives really want is to make the poor poorer and the rich richer.

There is nothing in the conservative view of economic policy as it relates to rich and poor that does not strive for that goal.

at the highest levels, yes. but for the lowly conservatives that start poor-hating threads, it is just about making sure that other people are worse off than they are, so that they can feel they have status without having to accomplish anything substantive.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hey....here's a novel idea!

Why don't you pick an actual post, and respond to it!



Don't be afraid....I won't be too rough on you.

Why don't you? We've all seen enough of your act...

Tell us specifically why getting rid of free public education for the Poor will improve their circumstance in America.

"We"?

Oh...you and Ms. Truthie!


A marriage made in Heaven!

Your claim was that the government has no business redistributing wealth. Public education is a direct redistribution of wealth.

Since you thus believe that all public education should end, I'm asking you to tell us specifically why getting rid of free public education for the Poor will improve their circumstance in America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What are you talking about? Those are not requirements. Most (adult) food stamp recipients work, but do not make enough to feed their families, including many single income intact families. People who are on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (cash welfare) have to seek work after being on the program for a certain amount of time (as per 1996 welfare reform). The vast majority of poor people work. Not all of them receive benefits. They do however exist.

You are truly clueless.

I heard on the news that 39 states don't check eligibility for food stampsl

Then, there's this:

" In fact, since
President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more
than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15
trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the
poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.

….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part
of the program’s growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease
eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have
risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007
and are now roughly 10 percent higher than
they were when Obama took office."Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in
the Food Stamps Program,” Economix,
Casey B. Mulligan: The Sharp Increase in the Food Stamps Program - NYTimes.com
Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected | CNS News
Scribd


You would be better advised to stick to things you know about....

....if there are any.

No. Clueless people are those who only accept information from sources that are biased toward their existing prejudices. When you say you heard something "on the news" I can guess what that means

Ohhhhh....so that's why you rely on "Fact-Check"???


PolitiFact this week judged statements about the Arizona immigration law and Climategate. Guess what side these fact-checkers chose? If you guessed “Progressive/Democrat,” you’re a winner!
PolitiFact?s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate) | RedState

'PolitiFact is not that honest fact-checker. And these aren’t isolated cases. Once widely regarded as a unique, rigorous and reasonably independent investigator of political claims, PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberals. More pointedly, the journalism organization concludes that conservatives have flat out lied nine times more often than liberals.'
PolitiFact bias: Does the GOP tell nine times more lies than left? Really? - Conservative News

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times,...also known as the St. Petersburg Times,
"The Tampa Bay Times, previously named the St. Petersburg Times,..."
Tampa Bay Times - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Same as....

Fact-Check: a political fact-checking website created by the St. Petersburg Times, which endorsed Obama in '08.
'In 2003, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the St. Petersburg Times as a "usually liberal" newspaper.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times



They lead you around by that ring in your nose?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This thread is even further proof that what conservatives really want is to make the poor poorer and the rich richer.

There is nothing in the conservative view of economic policy as it relates to rich and poor that does not strive for that goal.

at the highest levels, yes. but for the lowly conservatives that start poor-hating threads, it is just about making sure that other people are worse off than they are, so that they can feel they have status without having to accomplish anything substantive.

The working class conservatives are just ignorant pawns in the rich man's game.

Every policy they support takes from the Poorer and gives to the Richer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All of my points have gone unrefuted.

Whether she has a job is directly related to her claim that people without jobs are LAZY.

So go fuck yourself, and we'll both feel better.

What points, exactly?

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed all of your imaginary points. Can you point them out? P.S....reference to PC's family or attempts to get personal information are not "points".

She's repeatedly accused me of not having a job. Why don't you rag on her wrinkly ass?

Link?

....or lie?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Ever notice that PC complains incessantly about the poor and the welfare state that assists them,

but NEVER offers a better way to do things?

I bet she's also against abortion and Planned Parenthood funding, but at the same time doesn't want her taxes to go to welfare for women who cannot support their children otherwise. These far righties are so out of touch with reality.

I bet you're ready to join the Anti-Mensa Society.

Sorry, I realize you're upset that I just showed how you're their poster girl with your "39 states don't even check eligibility for food stamps!" .....Ouch!

You're Star Parker's bitch and you don't even know it.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

This thread is even further proof that what conservatives really want is to make the poor poorer and the rich richer.

There is nothing in the conservative view of economic policy as it relates to rich and poor that does not strive for that goal.

at the highest levels, yes. but for the lowly conservatives that start poor-hating threads, it is just about making sure that other people are worse off than they are, so that they can feel they have status without having to accomplish anything substantive.

The working class conservatives are just ignorant pawns in the rich man's game.

Every policy they support takes from the Poorer and gives to the Richer.

Right on, so right on. They continually vote against their own interests.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What are you talking about? Those are not requirements. Most (adult) food stamp recipients work, but do not make enough to feed their families, including many single income intact families. People who are on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (cash welfare) have to seek work after being on the program for a certain amount of time (as per 1996 welfare reform). The vast majority of poor people work. Not all of them receive benefits. They do however exist.

You are truly clueless.

I heard on the news that 39 states don't check eligibility for food stampsl

Do you bother to look things like this up or just rely on Fox Noise? The reference is to vehicles owned by those who apply. [shaking head]


"Households may have $2,000 in countable resources, such as a bank account, or $3250 in countable resources if at least one person is age 60 or older, or is disabled. However, certain resources are NOT counted, such as a home and lot, the resources of people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the resources of people who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, formerly AFDC), and most retirement (pension) plans.

The procedures for handling vehicles are determined at the state level. States have the option of substituting the vehicle rules used in their TANF assistance programs for SNAP vehicle rules when it results in a lower attribution of household assets. A number of States exclude the entire value of the household’s primary vehicle as an asset. In States that count the value of vehicles, the fair market value of each licensed vehicle that is not excluded is evaluated. Currently 39 States exclude the value of all vehicles entirely. 11 States totally exclude the value of at least one vehicle per household. The 3 remaining states exempt an amount higher than the SNAP’s standard auto exemption (currently set at $4,650) from the fair market value to determine the countable resource value of a vehicle. For more information concerning State specific vehicle policy, check with the State agency that administers the SNAP program. ""

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm

Can you read?
"I heard on the news that 39 states don't check eligibility for food stampsl"

No matter what the pretend-rules say....they don't check.

They rubber-stamp applications.

You know, like they rubber-stamped your high school diploma.



Have someone read this to you:
"Fraud in the program is also not just a federal government issue. The problem also lies within states, each of which has a different requirement for who receives such benefits. In 35 states, people can get food stamps even if they don’t partake in any other assistance programs."
Fact Checking Newt Gingrich?s Food Stamps Claims - ABC News

 

[Misty]

I've been rich, I've been upper middle class, and now that I am middle class, I am poorer than I've ever been finding myself in an over taxed state and an over taxed federal system. I'm on the cusp of being taxed as if I were rich. Every dime I save goes to the government in taxes. Not to mention my gas is taxed my food is taxed my house is taxed my car is taxed My money is taxed 5 times for every dollar I earn.

I pay for my own healthcare my own dental.

And when I hear that people on welfare get 70,000 a year in entitlements it pisses me off.

 

[Agit8r]

You are truly clueless.

I heard on the news that 39 states don't check eligibility for food stampsl

Do you bother to look things like this up or just rely on Fox Noise? The reference is to vehicles owned by those who apply. [shaking head]


"Households may have $2,000 in countable resources, such as a bank account, or $3250 in countable resources if at least one person is age 60 or older, or is disabled. However, certain resources are NOT counted, such as a home and lot, the resources of people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the resources of people who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, formerly AFDC), and most retirement (pension) plans.

The procedures for handling vehicles are determined at the state level. States have the option of substituting the vehicle rules used in their TANF assistance programs for SNAP vehicle rules when it results in a lower attribution of household assets. A number of States exclude the entire value of the household’s primary vehicle as an asset. In States that count the value of vehicles, the fair market value of each licensed vehicle that is not excluded is evaluated. Currently 39 States exclude the value of all vehicles entirely. 11 States totally exclude the value of at least one vehicle per household. The 3 remaining states exempt an amount higher than the SNAP’s standard auto exemption (currently set at $4,650) from the fair market value to determine the countable resource value of a vehicle. For more information concerning State specific vehicle policy, check with the State agency that administers the SNAP program. ""

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm

Can you read?
"I heard on the news that 39 states don't check eligibility for food stampsl"

No matter what the pretend-rules say....they don't check.

They rubber-stamp applications.

You know, like they rubber-stamped your high school diploma.



Have someone read this to you:
"Fraud in the program is also not just a federal government issue. The problem also lies within states, each of which has a different requirement for who receives such benefits. In 35 states, people can get food stamps even if they don’t partake in any other assistance programs."
Fact Checking Newt Gingrich?s Food Stamps Claims - ABC News

Obviously if this "news" was a legitimate source, you would have backed up the claim with actual substance. But you did not, so it is not.

 

[rightwinger]

Amazing again how misinformed the dupes are. Those on welfare DO have to work for all their benefits, DO have to apply for jobs, ARE screened for drugs, and HATE it.. The problem is your a-hole Pubs who started the Great World Recession, now obstruct the recovery, and fill your "minds" with such drivel and hate.

You really know nothing, huh?

How do you find your way back to the refrigerator-box you call home?


"Determined to destroy Bill Clinton’s signature achievement, President Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

On Thursday of last week, HHS issued regulations that modified — gutted — the work requirement. Its new regulations allow the states to substitute education programs for work to get welfare benefits."

Read more: Obama kills welfare reform - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Isn't it wise to waive the work requirement in times of high unemployment?

 

[rightwinger]

I've been rich, I've been upper middle class, and now that I am middle class, I am poorer than I've ever been finding myself in an over taxed state and an over taxed federal system. I'm on the cusp of being taxed as if I were rich. Every dime I save goes to the government in taxes. Not to mention my gas is taxed my food is taxed my house is taxed my car is taxed My money is taxed 5 times for every dollar I earn.

I pay for my own healthcare my own dental.

And when I hear that people on welfare get 70,000 a year in entitlements it pisses me off.

Which entitlements are worth $70,000 a year?

Seems people would be flocking to be poor

 

[koshergrl]

Amazing again how misinformed the dupes are. Those on welfare DO have to work for all their benefits, DO have to apply for jobs, ARE screened for drugs, and HATE it.. The problem is your a-hole Pubs who started the Great World Recession, now obstruct the recovery, and fill your "minds" with such drivel and hate.

You really know nothing, huh?

How do you find your way back to the refrigerator-box you call home?


"Determined to destroy Bill Clinton’s signature achievement, President Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

On Thursday of last week, HHS issued regulations that modified — gutted — the work requirement. Its new regulations allow the states to substitute education programs for work to get welfare benefits."

Read more: Obama kills welfare reform - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com
Follow us: @Thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Isn't it wise to waive the work requirement in times of high unemployment?

Nope. It's not. Which is why tanf recipients went down when the reforms were in place.

The work programs vary from location to location, as do the requirments. The feds contract different community partners to run the jobs programs...it may be the employment office, or a local college, or a county entity that develops and heads the jobs programs.

They typically consist of a certain number of hours per week spent in a classroom setting (at the DHS office, usually...with easy access to or actually in the same building as the Employment office). One program I witnessed had the clients meet 3x a week. They would go over the help wanted ads, brainstorm and share with each other who was hiring, then figure out where they were going to apply. They turned in job contact sheets once a week, had to make 10 contacts a week, and of those half or so could be re-contacts (calling someone you already applied with). Interviews counted as job contacts. In addition, the class would host different speakers/teachers every week. One week, they might have the director of a local program that is looking for direct care staff; the next week they might have someone talking about how to fill out an application, the next week might they might have students take the food handler's test and get certified.

People are encouraged to apply online for jobs, and there are people on hand to assist them and the computer is provided...as well as a fax machine and phones to make calls.

Jobs programs work. That's where funding needs to go...educational programs that motivate and move people. Not more benefits. The idea is to get OFF benefits...not provide benefits to ever more people.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

You are truly clueless.

I heard on the news that 39 states don't check eligibility for food stampsl

Do you bother to look things like this up or just rely on Fox Noise? The reference is to vehicles owned by those who apply. [shaking head]


"Households may have $2,000 in countable resources, such as a bank account, or $3250 in countable resources if at least one person is age 60 or older, or is disabled. However, certain resources are NOT counted, such as a home and lot, the resources of people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the resources of people who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, formerly AFDC), and most retirement (pension) plans.

The procedures for handling vehicles are determined at the state level. States have the option of substituting the vehicle rules used in their TANF assistance programs for SNAP vehicle rules when it results in a lower attribution of household assets. A number of States exclude the entire value of the household’s primary vehicle as an asset. In States that count the value of vehicles, the fair market value of each licensed vehicle that is not excluded is evaluated. Currently 39 States exclude the value of all vehicles entirely. 11 States totally exclude the value of at least one vehicle per household. The 3 remaining states exempt an amount higher than the SNAP’s standard auto exemption (currently set at $4,650) from the fair market value to determine the countable resource value of a vehicle. For more information concerning State specific vehicle policy, check with the State agency that administers the SNAP program. ""

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm

Can you read?
"I heard on the news that 39 states don't check eligibility for food stampsl"

No matter what the pretend-rules say....they don't check.

They rubber-stamp applications.

You know, like they rubber-stamped your high school diploma.



Have someone read this to you:
"Fraud in the program is also not just a federal government issue. The problem also lies within states, each of which has a different requirement for who receives such benefits. In 35 states, people can get food stamps even if they don’t partake in any other assistance programs."
Fact Checking Newt Gingrich?s Food Stamps Claims - ABC News

Sorry, toots. That is from a blog and doesn't refer to what you wrote that you "heard on the news". I cited actual data for application from the federal site using YOUR reference to 39 states. It's about licensed vehicles considered as resources...... Try again.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I've been rich, I've been upper middle class, and now that I am middle class, I am poorer than I've ever been finding myself in an over taxed state and an over taxed federal system. I'm on the cusp of being taxed as if I were rich. Every dime I save goes to the government in taxes. Not to mention my gas is taxed my food is taxed my house is taxed my car is taxed My money is taxed 5 times for every dollar I earn.

I pay for my own healthcare my own dental.

And when I hear that people on welfare get 70,000 a year in entitlements it pisses me off.

Which entitlements are worth $70,000 a year?

Seems people would be flocking to be poor

Indeed, let's see it. Note that there is no link to hard data about this. Right wingers are terrified of hard, irrefutable data. They much prefer hysterical rants by Sean, Ann, Bill, Glenn, Alex, and Rush. Those are their sources.

Heaven forbid they actually use their computer for corroborating information. They just use it to scream on this board.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You bet. Most of em do no want a job. They want the taxpayers of America to fund their lives for them. They don't have to get up and go to work or worry about where the money to pay the bills will come from.

Shit. You have Grandma, Mom and grandkid all with their illigitimate kids on welfare. No way will any of em get off their asses and take care of themselves. Why should they when we the taxpayer are forced to support them.

Of course they vote Democratic. Why wouldn't they. Thats the party that has foisted their responsibility onto the taxpayers of this country.

So we have established that Republicans do not want to offer employment opportunities because......they are too fucking lazy to take them

So Republicans what is your solution?

Who says anyone has to have a solution because to be perfectly honest, there isn't one.

There will always be poor out there. The poor have been there throughout history.
Until the poor decide to get themselves out of poverty we will always have poverty.

Welfare is a bandaid that most of them take advantage of. They could care where the money comes from as long as they don't have to earn it.

We will always need welfare, better that then the crime rate would go thru the roof and yes people do take advantage of it, but no one likes seeing children abandon on street corners begging for a dime.