Food-stamp use doubles

Gimmesometruth said:

You are starting from the wrong point in time, when LBJ got the program rolling in 1964 we had as a nation been seeing the poverty rate reaching levels of over 20%, as recently as the 1950's. Since then the rate has "remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since".

Click to expand...

Given that the the measurements of what constitutes poverty has changed over time, often for political ends, do you have any stats on the 1950's? It seems during that period that a working husband could sufficiently provide for a wife and two children, which is far more difficult in the working class of today.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33069.pdf

Grant said:

Given that the the measurements of what constitutes poverty has changed over time, often for political ends, do you have any stats on the 1950's?

Click to expand...

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

It seems during that period that a working husband could sufficiently provide for a wife and two children, which is far more difficult in the working class of today.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33069.pdf

Click to expand...

You are ignoring the various income supports now in place, from SNAP to the Earn Income Credit.

j-mac said:

Balance is important. Since you want to make this a 'my side'/'your side' argument, I would say that the ability to bring people out of poverty, or at least what we in this country term as such, is stagnant at best. With more focus on federal giveaways, and less on the incorporation of training to move people out of their circumstances on their own is problematic. Also, as a note the further shift of progressive governance in terms of shifting toward nationalizing private industry in this country that totals a full 1/6th of the nations GDP is worrisome. My concern is not that America will continue to be a country that boasts that anyone can make it, to more of a country of lowering all tides to achieve a static level. That's not freedom.

Click to expand...

Removing programs is not an effort to do anything. Demonizing poor people is not an effort. Nor is it stagnant, but instead fliud, depending on many, many factors. And training is a huge part of what the government does. Schools and on the job training is available, and the biggest cost associated with these "give aways."

Nor is there any shift to speak of nationalizing private industry. This is largely a false claim. healthcare is more a public service and less an industry. Seeing as an industry is what has cause a large amount of the problems we see in healthcare. Health for profit is a poor model overall. Once we stop holding on the platitude and dig in it is clear to see the problems with the the current model. it hurts business by raising their costs, it promotes reactive over preventative, it rewards procedures, and leaves many unable to pay for the services.

Acting just because you can is not always the smartest path.

Click to expand...

It may be the only path, smartest or not. I would argue however that in the long term, it is very dumb to hurt the worker too much. Very dumb.

Grant said:

The middle class is shrinking because too much wealth is going to the government rather than staying with the people. The Federal government, along with many state governments, is unaffordable. The American people are getting more services and regulations than they need or can afford.

Were all those trillions the feds remove from the economy to remain with the people the middle class would be thriving. The poor can remain poor, the rich will remain rich and the middle will be the first to decline. It really is no secret, and there should not be any complaints or shock from the leftists. It's inevitable in any economy.

There is a very good reason why DC and its suburbs are the most wealthy in the nation, despite there being only one resource. That would be the American taxpayer.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that, and I think any close look would show that isn't true. Business is doing rather well over all. They out source and lot and would even if there were not taxed at all. Overseas there is no worry about health insurance, wages are very low, and even if taxed there, they'd still come out ahead. As long as they can hire cheap labor elsewhere and not have to deal with health care, over there is more appealing. Also, no one is not investing due to taxes. Studies have been provided that show business and the wealthy do not hire nor stop hiring based on taxes. So, again, I just don't buy your premise.

Gimmesometruth said:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

You are ignoring the various income supports now in place, from SNAP to the Earn Income Credit.

Click to expand...

Yes, which is why poverty will continue to grow, using the stats available, and the middle class will continue to shrink. Apparently they are not including the trillions in debt required to service these programs, which means they must either be dropped one day, or money will be printed until the whole thing collapses on itself. Fighting 'poverty' using their stats and methods by government handouts has never worked anywhere. The 'happy index' would be a far better indicator of how people are doing. There seems little doubt that people were happier a generation ago.

Boo Radley said:

I don't believe that, and I think any close look would show that isn't true. Business is doing rather well over all. They out source and lot and would even if there were not taxed at all. Overseas there is no worry about health insurance, wages are very low, and even if taxed there, they'd still come out ahead. As long as they can hire cheap labor elsewhere and not have to deal with health care, over there is more appealing. Also, no one is not investing due to taxes. Studies have been provided that show business and the wealthy do not hire nor stop hiring based on taxes. So, again, I just don't buy your premise.

Click to expand...

OK, then there is no poverty, manageable debt, and plenty of work for everyone. That is good news.

The next time I hear someone whining about businesses and corporations leaving the country i'll send them to you.

Boo Radley said:

Health for profit is a poor model overall.

Click to expand...

Actually it is the best model and motivator ever invented and is what made the Unites States the world's leader in innovation and quality health care.

With the government gaining control of people's health neither cost nor efficiency will ever be a real factor again, and there is no reason why it should be. The money is there regardless and will be spent on an ever burgeoning bureaucracy, with less for the patients and the doctors.. But of course you won't know this until it's too late, when the theory hits the fan.

Boo Radley said:

Removing programs is not an effort to do anything.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about removal of programs? We in this country are a generous people. We want to help those less fortunate than ourselves, and do. But what is wrong with saying that there is a limit to that aid, and those who are able need to do what is necessary to get off the program?

Demonizing poor people is not an effort.

Click to expand...

You can call a sponge a Buick, but it's not....It's a sponge.

Nor is it stagnant, but instead fliud, depending on many, many factors.

Click to expand...

If so great why don't we see poverty at single digits then...I mean we have poured Trillions into it...

And training is a huge part of what the government does.

Click to expand...

Yeah? Where is it?

Schools and on the job training is available, and the biggest cost associated with these "give aways."

Click to expand...

Funny that we don't hear as much about that as we do the food stamp ads on the radio....Why do you suppose that is?

Nor is there any shift to speak of nationalizing private industry.

Click to expand...

The healthcare industry is 1/6th of the nations GDP. You are arguing for a government based, centralized system....That is nationalization of the system friend...Like it or not.

Seeing as an industry is what has cause a large amount of the problems we see in healthcare. Health for profit is a poor model overall.

Click to expand...

That's nonsense...A little less Star Trek, and a little more real world would help here... We have real world examples of what you want, and it looks dismal.

Once we stop holding on the platitude and dig in it is clear to see the problems with the the current model.

Click to expand...

It isn't those of us against Obamacare that are ignoring what the rest of the worlds nationalized universal care systems are doing, that would by your side trying to feed us a steaming pile and telling us it is chocolate ice cream.

it hurts business by raising their costs, it promotes reactive over preventative, it rewards procedures, and leaves many unable to pay for the services.

Click to expand...

Reigning in lawyers, and people looking to scam the system for that lotto payday because they had a headache after surgery is what is driving costs...Fix the Tort system....Obamacare doesn't touch that, why?

It may be the only path, smartest or not. I would argue however that in the long term, it is very dumb to hurt the worker too much. Very dumb.

Click to expand...

We are individuals in this country...You know who else called the blue collar guy, "workers", and divided people into classes don't you?.....That's right, communists....

Grant said:

OK, then there is no poverty, manageable debt, and plenty of work for everyone. That is good news.

The next time I hear someone whining about businesses and corporations leaving the country i'll send them to you.

Click to expand...

I never like it when someone deliberately misread what was said. It's a very weak tactic.

Grant said:

Actually it is the best model and motivator ever invented and is what made the Unites States the world's leader in innovation and quality health care.

With the government gaining control of people's health neither cost nor efficiency will ever be a real factor again, and there is no reason why it should be. The money is there regardless and will be spent on an ever burgeoning bureaucracy, with less for the patients and the doctors.. But of course you won't know this until it's too late, when the theory hits the fan.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Mostly people accept your view of it without ever questioning, kind of a group think drenched in nationalism. But we're neither cheap nor cost effective. And it really doesn't serve patients well either, for the reasons I already noted.

j-mac said:

Who said anything about removal of programs? We in this country are a generous people. We want to help those less fortunate than ourselves, and do. But what is wrong with saying that there is a limit to that aid, and those who are able need to do what is necessary to get off the program?



You can call a sponge a Buick, but it's not....It's a sponge.



If so great why don't we see poverty at single digits then...I mean we have poured Trillions into it...



Yeah? Where is it?



Funny that we don't hear as much about that as we do the food stamp ads on the radio....Why do you suppose that is?



The healthcare industry is 1/6th of the nations GDP. You are arguing for a government based, centralized system....That is nationalization of the system friend...Like it or not.



That's nonsense...A little less Star Trek, and a little more real world would help here... We have real world examples of what you want, and it looks dismal.



It isn't those of us against Obamacare that are ignoring what the rest of the worlds nationalized universal care systems are doing, that would by your side trying to feed us a steaming pile and telling us it is chocolate ice cream.



Reigning in lawyers, and people looking to scam the system for that lotto payday because they had a headache after surgery is what is driving costs...Fix the Tort system....Obamacare doesn't touch that, why?



We are individuals in this country...You know who else called the blue collar guy, "workers", and divided people into classes don't you?.....That's right, communists....

Click to expand...

You're breakup is distracting and largely incoherent. You seem to be using it to make quips, but not points, so I'm unsure how to proceed.

However, all the things you listed from sponges (proving my point about demonizing) to lawyers are factually inaccurate. Reining in lawyers through tort reform has been tried in states and failed. All the dancing continues to fail because profit demands profit. As a service that places the one in need at a distinct disadvantage, the market simply can't be used like a market. This why were one of the few market models left.

And before you go into costs, we pay more than countries with universal health care.

Also, no one suggests there are no limits. But before I start on the poor and he working class, I'd address other issues and consider other solutions. Fighting fewer needless wars, appeasing business that is only going to out source anyway, and giving money to private business, private schools, and private lending nstitutions.

Grant said:

Given that the the measurements of what constitutes poverty has changed over time, often for political ends, do you have any stats on the 1950's? It seems during that period that a working husband could sufficiently provide for a wife and two children, which is far more difficult in the working class of today.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33069.pdf

Click to expand...

Comparing the 1950s and the 2010s is a bit problematic.

Yes, a man could go to work in manufacturing and make enough money to support a wife and family, and could do it without a college degree, even without a high school diploma.

The family would have a house to live in, food on the table, and a car to drive.

They wouldn't have a big screen TV. or probably any TV. They would have a radio, or maybe two. They wouldn't have a computer, video games, cell phones, or an automatic washer and dryer. They wouldn't have health insurance, but still could afford basic care. MRI machines, CAT scans, most medicines, transplants, and most vaccinations were still in the future. Polio was a huge worry until the Salk Vaccine in the late '50s.

All those things cost money.

Moreover, should the bread winner die or become incapacitated, the family was in real trouble. Few employers would hire a woman, after all, as a penis was the prime requirement for a job that paid a living wage, and there was little in the way of assistance to widows and orphans.

The world has changed. In some ways, it's a lot better, in others a lot worse, but it is much different today.

Dittohead not! said:

Comparing the 1950s and the 2010s is a bit problematic.

Yes, a man could go to work in manufacturing and make enough money to support a wife and family, and could do it without a college degree, even without a high school diploma.

The family would have a house to live in, food on the table, and a car to drive.

They wouldn't have a big screen TV. or probably any TV. They would have a radio, or maybe two. They wouldn't have a computer, video games, cell phones, or an automatic washer and dryer. They wouldn't have health insurance, but still could afford basic care. MRI machines, CAT scans, most medicines, transplants, and most vaccinations were still in the future. Polio was a huge worry until the Salk Vaccine in the late '50s.

All those things cost money.

Moreover, should the bread winner die or become incapacitated, the family was in real trouble. Few employers would hire a woman, after all, as a penis was the prime requirement for a job that paid a living wage, and there was little in the way of assistance to widows and orphans.

The world has changed. In some ways, it's a lot better, in others a lot worse, but it is much different today.

Click to expand...

It seems America was a happier place then and the high tech gadgets weren't missed, largely because they were only created of in science fiction. We really don't miss the things others will take for granted in 60 years time because we have no idea what they might be.

Not a perfect world by any means but there was confidence and hope, two characteristics which seem to be lacking now.

Boo Radley said:

It may be the only path, smartest or not. I would argue however that in the long term, it is very dumb to hurt the worker too much. Very dumb.

Click to expand...

And of course it's just as stupid to demonize businesses or take advantage of them. Otherwise they will just shut down or leave, thereby hurting everyone.

Grant said:

It seems America was a happier place then and the high tech gadgets weren't missed, largely because they were only created of in science fiction. We really don't miss the things others will take for granted in 60 years time because we have no idea what they might be.

Not a perfect world by any means but there was confidence and hope, two characteristics which seem to be lacking now.

Click to expand...

Definitely not a perfect world, but yes, there was confidence and hope, and a belief that America was the greatest country on Earth.

And a functioning government that managed to build the interstate highway system and help rebuild both our allies and former enemies from WWII, and without incurring a debt we couldn't pay.

That last would be nice to have back.

I'd like to keep the technological progress made since then, too.

You can just take the racism and sexism of that era out to the trash, however. That we don't need.

Dittohead not! said:

Definitely not a perfect world, but yes, there was confidence and hope, and a belief that America was the greatest country on Earth.

And a functioning government that managed to build the interstate highway system and help rebuild both our allies and former enemies from WWII, and without incurring a debt we couldn't pay.

That last would be nice to have back.

I'd like to keep the technological progress made since then, too.

You can just take the racism and sexism of that era out to the trash, however. That we don't need.

Click to expand...

Both are still around but the sexism was different then, Both men and women were seriously expected to follow social obligations. Women were treated like 'ladies', a quaint term now, and there is a great deal more sexism directed against men now then there was then. I think we just ignore it and shrug it off, but it is certainly there.

Boo Radley said:

No, it isn't. Mostly people accept your view
of it without ever questioning,
kind of a group think drenched in nationalism. But we're neither cheap nor cost effective. And it really doesn't serve patients well either, for the reasons I already noted.

Click to expand...

When my mother was a practicing nurse in Houston ( Herman ) people from all around the world traveled here to get their life saving healthcare.

Most notably from Saudi, UK and Canada. I suppose they had the means to make a choice.

HealthCare as a right leaves no room for innovation or competition and eventually leads to a system of marginal care .

Far be it from me that I would want my physician to be driven but things other than a paycheck and the Hypocratic Oath.

They're people too apparently. Plus not one of you Socialised Healthcare advocates have been able to give a decent and specific account of how it could be payed for.

Fenton said:

When my mother was a practicing nurse in Houston ( Herman ) people from all around the world traveled here to get their life saving healthcare.

Most notably from Saudi, UK and Canada. I suppose they had the means to make a choice.

HealthCare as a right leaves no room for innovation or competition and eventually leads to a system of marginal care .

Far be it from me that I would want my physician to be driven but things other than a paycheck and the Hypocratic Oath.

They're people too apparently. Plus not one of you Socialised Healthcare advocates have been able to give a decent and specific account of how it could be payed for.

Click to expand...

Watch the bureaucracy grow as well. Only Walmart, the Indian railway and the Chinese military have more employees than Britain's NHS. The US can easily overtake them, and will. Whoever thought a bureaucracy could solve a health problem should have their heads examined which, under Obamacare, might soon be impossible.

I bet the population of blacks in the U.S has also doubled!!! More than likely, I will hear that in some sort of incompetent and illusory speech from a paranoid racist by the end of this week.

Grant said:

Watch the bureaucracy grow as well. Only Walmart, the Indian railway and the Chinese military have more employees than Britain's NHS. The US can easily overtake them, and will. Whoever thought a bureaucracy could solve a health problem should have their heads examined which, under Obamacare, might soon be impossible.

Click to expand...

If you think Britain's NHS is cumbersome and inefficient, remember that our own health care system, even before "Obamacare", is more costly still.

shlunka said:

I bet the population of blacks in the U.S has also doubled!!! More than likely, I will hear that in some sort of incompetent and illusory speech from a paranoid racist by the end of this week.

Click to expand...

and when you do, will you recognize him as a kindred spirit?

Grant said:

And of course it's just as stupid to demonize businesses or take advantage of them. Otherwise they will just shut down or leave, thereby hurting everyone.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure everyone who thinks they could do more is demonizing. Them. And much if that is a response to the attitude popularized by Fox and repeated by Romney that everyone is a moocher.

But frankly, business doesn't really give a ****. They get a lot of what they want from government.

Fenton said:

When my mother was a practicing nurse in Houston ( Herman ) people from all around the world traveled here to get their life saving healthcare.

Most notably from Saudi, UK and Canada. I suppose they had the means to make a choice.

HealthCare as a right leaves no room for innovation or competition and eventually leads to a system of marginal care .

Far be it from me that I would want my physician to be driven but things other than a paycheck and the Hypocratic Oath.

They're people too apparently. Plus not one of you Socialised Healthcare advocates have been able to give a decent and specific account of how it could be payed for.

Click to expand...

I can show people who went over there to get life saving treatment. Largely your claim is wildly overstated in based in unsupported propaganda.

And the paycheck too often overrides the oath. That's the problem with the market.

Boo Radley said:

I can show people who went over there to get life saving treatment. Largely your claim is wildly overstated in based in unsupported propaganda.

And the paycheck too often overrides the oath. That's the problem with the market.

Click to expand...

Its BASED in fact and actual experience. Your generic claims of UHC superiority is the unsupported propaganda. 45 years in this Country and I've never been without healthcare, nor my family nor anyone I know.

The whole claim that our system was broken in the first place was propagandas and lies. The only thing the left is any good at.

Did our premiums rise ? Sure, open the borders of any Nation with a Private or UHC for that matter and allow 20 million new illegal immigrants to use the nearest emergency room for free care and its going to effect cost.

2 years ago in Dallas's Parkland Hospital 75% of all new births were to illegals with no insurance.

Oh no but its our inherent system thats broken. BULL SH**. Just like your argument. Bull Sh**

Fenton said:

Its BASED in fact and actual experience. Your generic claims of UHC superiority is the unsupported propaganda. 45 years in this Country and I've never been without healthcare, nor my family nor anyone I know.

The whole claim that our system was broken in the first place was propagandas and lies. The only thing the left is any good at.

Did our premiums rise ? Sure, open the borders of any Nation with a Private or UHC for that matter and allow 20 million new illegal immigrants to use the nearest emergency room for free care and its going to effect cost.

2 years ago in Dallas's Parkland Hospital 75% of all new births were to illegals with no insurance.

Oh no but its our inherent system thats broken. BULL SH**. Just like your argument. Bull Sh**

Click to expand...

No, the numbers support what I have said. We pay more. Our access spotty. And we overdo, which can be as bad for someone as doing too little.