Food Stamps and Welfare

I saw a very negative post today on Facebook about those of us, who are just plain tired of the abuses that go on in the food stamp/welfare entitlement system.  Now everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this FB friend just seems to have that liberal superior attitude that I find most annoying. You know the attitude I’m talking about. The one where they are always right and anyone who doesn’t agree with them is always wrong.

There’s a lot of truth in what this person said about the greedy wealthy, but to use Papa John’s Pizza as an example of business owners in order to push for raising the minimum wage is really not fair. All business owners are not wealthy. In fact, I would venture to say that most are not since it’s only about the top 1% that meet that status.

Most small business owners are hanging on by the same thread that a lot of their workers are in this economy. Having owned a business, I can tell you that the overhead, the percentage of SS you pay for each employee, the Workers Comp you are required to have, the insurance you are required to provide, paid vacations, sick pay, the regulations, the taxes, and the list goes on and on, takes it’s toll. You don’t mind doing for your employees, but you, also, need to have something left to take home and provide for your own family. This fact seems to get overlooked by people who want to demean business owners.

Everyone should know that there is tremendous fraud in the food stamp/welfare entitlement system. Besides, a lot of people complaining about the system are the ones who really need help, but make a couple of dollars over the limit, so they are left to try and figure out how to feed their kids while others are fraudulently taking taxpayers money and living better than they are. The government does nothing to try to fix the fraud. When you have multiple generations of one family on the system, there is a problem. To deny that fact is just ridiculous. To continue to add to the roles without trying to fix the problem is, also, ridiculous. It’s like offering amnesty prior to fixing the border.

You have to look at all sides to understand why people have different opinions about issues. And, I don’t consider poor people lazy, as was said (not of me personally) in this post, and I don’t know anyone personally who does think that. One thing is for sure. There will always be rich and poor. The only thing that will change is the middle class getting poorer while the rich get richer.

It’s fine to have a “cause,” and let’s face it, there are way too many causes these days that take precedent over the good of the country. But, how long do people think our country can go on the way it is?

Sorry, but that’s my rant for this evening!

Advertisements

Beach Bum Proud of Being on Food Stamps

I encourage everyone to watch this video.  This California Beach Bum is actually unashamed–some might even say proud–that he is getting food stamps.  He doesn’t care that hard working Americans are paying for his useless lifestyle.  I’m sure this is just one example of the entitlement mentality gone amok.

http://www.fiscalconservatives.com/videos/bP_izYhdehY.html

A New Definition of Poverty

PovertyRates-byState

There has been a presumed “poverty” line – but this article would seem to indicate the government is getting more creative about how they define or characterize “poverty”. But I have to admit that when I look around subsidized housing complexes and I see very nice cars, kids in expensive clothes and shoes and most people moving in with big screen TVs – I have a hard time rationalizing that they need a rent that is subsidized by taxpayers…. what do you think??

Government Defines Poverty Upward, Media Don’t Notice the Trick

While the reliable and original formula for the government to calculate who lives in “absolute poverty” is still in place, another measure has been introduced that enables the government to determine how many people live in “relative poverty,” a term often used to describe the concept of “income inequality.”
According to Mickey Kaus of the Daily Caller website, this new “supplemental” concept is “an audacious, slimy bait-and-switch by liberal activists inside the government anti-poverty bureaucracy.” And, as would be expected, it’s gone almost totally unnoticed in the establishment left-wing press.

Kaus added that the new system is “a complicated measure produced by formulas that are barely understood by poverty experts” and includes millions of people in a new “near poor” category, a  loaded term designed to “suggest to most people a level of material hardship that doesn’t exist.”

Of course, “the regular old, still-official poverty line is simple and understandable,” Kaus stated:

It is the level that bought a minimal market basket of food in 1963-4, adjusted for subsequent inflation and multiplied by three. As such, it measures what people think a poverty line measures — how many people fall below certain absolute living standards, whether basic human needs are being met.

“We’ve been using it for decades,” he added, “so while it may be too high or too low, people have a rough feel for what it is and what it isn’t.”

“For most Americans, the word ‘poverty’ suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter,” said Robert Rector of the National Review

“But only a small number of the 40 million persons classified as poor under the government’s current poverty definition fit that description,” he added. Most of America’s poor live in material conditions that would have been judged comfortable, or even well-off, two generations ago.

However, Kaus stated that the new formula has resulted in sensational headlines across the country stating that the number of people in poverty has suddenly mushroomed, an indication that “new” does not necessarily mean “better.”

For example, the reporter pointed to a story run online with an opening paragraph that read:

As President Barack Obama is set to begin his second term, new statistics on America’s poverty rate indicate that nearly 50 million Americans, more than 16 percent of the population, are struggling to survive.

Also, veteran federal poverty analyst Richard Bavier stated on the Brookings Institution website that the new program is “carefully designed so that the public will think it is one thing when it really is something else.”

Kathleen Short, a U.S. Census Bureau economist, recently produced a report on the new formula and noted in a news release that “there are several important differences between the official and supplemental poverty measures.”

Among those differences are the “value of in-kind benefits,” such as food stamps, and deducting the cost of several “necessary expenses,” including taxes and medical care.

“The current poverty measure counts absolute purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy,” Rector noted. “The new measure will count comparative purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy relative to other people.”

“Under the old line, ‘poverty’ could be eliminated as society got richer — an achievable and widely shared goal,” Klaus stated. “But the new poverty line will rise as society gets richer (‘adjust for rising levels and standards of living’).”

As a result, “the newly measured poor will always be with us in substantial numbers.”

In fact,  Rector indicated, the only way to reduce poverty under the new, relative measure is to have those at the bottom gain income faster than anyone else, an unlikely trend.

“Maybe it’s just me, but the Census’s deception seems more flagrant than anything Susan Rice did in the wake of the Benghazi attacks,” Klaus added. “They can’t say they were badly briefed. It’s their report. Like General Petraeus, they know what they did.”

It’s clear to me that this new “supplemental” system is an attempt to expand the role of the government in the lives of people who are mostly doing well without this kind of help. Once the foot is in the door, federal officials can slowly phase out the simpler, more reliable system and replace it with something they can point to when calling for bigger government.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2012/11/28/new-supplemental-poverty-line-called-audacious-slimy-bait-and-switch#ixzz2DmIXN6xN

Photo From – http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/indicators/economy/poverty.php