by Sixstrings » Thu 15 Apr 2010, 09:09:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', 'D')espite a never-ending, and constantly growing many decades long (explicit or implied, take your pick) "war on poverty", at the end of the day, the government doesn't actually help the poor that much, at least in the USA.
Actually, Clinton and the Gingrich congress pretty much dismantled the welfare state. It worked out for a while, as we moved into the 90's and the boom of McJobs. The boom is now bust though, and we're faced with the stark reality of a new era of "peak jobs." This is where your premise, that government can "help the poor" breaks down -- if this were Australia and there was a roaring economy and bright future then yes government should help the poor get their act together so they can get out there and fill one of the many open positions.
But this ain't Australia, our sun has set and we're in decline now. Of course a job is better than the dole (and we don't even have a dole really, just the unemployment comp extensions that are about to be stopped), but we have to face the fact that we've sent so much of our economy overseas that WE NO LONGER HAVE ENOUGH JOBS. So the reality in this new "jobless" America is that government's role in helping the poor is more about just common human decency, as in not having people live in their cars or on the street just because TPTB flushed our economy into the globalist toilet.
We're getting sucked into global poverty from both ends, I just read that in 2009 Obama approved 1.2 million green cards. The top nationalities were Mexican, Chinese, Filipino (there goes all the nursing jobs), and Indian. That's 1.2 million new green cards, at a time when 1/5 of our workforce is already unemployed. And I think that doesn't even count all the H1B visas, and then there's illegal immigration.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '(')
I'm a moderate libertarian, BTW, that hates extremes on either end of politics. With economics, I do believe in property rights, incentives for success, and a work ethic -- extreme as those beliefs might be today in Obamaland)
The biggest problem with libertarianism is that in the globalist paradigm, capital is free but labor is trapped. So whereas in the past a Michiganer could move to say Florida to find work, in the new globalist world the work may be in Australia or Canada, which both have tight immigration barriers. And even if they had open immigration it still wouldn't matter, since we have too many people on this planet and that's why the American and European working classes are being averaged down into the muck of the world's poor.
by shortonsense » Thu 15 Apr 2010, 22:28:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')Yikes...you have my admiration.
Thank you. Yikes indeed! I was surprised to see how much less we made than last year, yet except for a few expenses I didn't notice the lack of money. The only thing that really pinches is health insurance. But I do try to "walk the talk" and I'm always yammering on about reducing the need to earn. Hence the attempt to live on next to nothing. We're not below the poverty line yet, though, as far as I know, because of the small family. Not that it would make any difference if we were. I can't see myself applying for all the free snacks, cars, and houses the poor get. I just wouldn't feel right putting that kind of burden on mattduke.
Well, more power to you then. I've got 2 kids, and what you are doing can't be easy. The only way I could see myself accomplishing something like that would be to live closer to a family support system, back on the farm it was much easier to put 100# of venison in the freezer and the vegetable garden really worked. Suburbia makes some things easier, but it certainly costs more.
by shortonsense » Fri 16 Apr 2010, 08:05:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hoops_Mckann', 'P')aid mine tonight, damn, married filing separate and could not claim the mort interest due to my name not being on the mortgage, she really stuck it too me even before the divorce is final. Had to pay $1800 extra on top of probubly 6000 fu#%. Single guy making $50k w/o mortgage or kids pays A TON. I guess you "pay" no mater what (to the banks or to the gov which is more or less the same). Did not save as she raided the account for payment on the house she has
Why did I (or anyone for that matter) get married? rant off.
Regular sex?
Certainly it seems that your experience is verifying the adage of "you are stuck with your relatives, but at least you get to pick your friends and wife". Pick more carefully next time. I've been married twice, and both are excellent women. I'd point you towards the ex, but she was snapped up by a pharmacist after the divorce.
Peak Oil Obfuscation Protocol 101: POOP101
Pretend the phrase, " None are so blind as those who will not see." only applies to everyone else.
-
shortonsense
- Permanently Banned
-
- Posts: 3124
- Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
-
by MarkJ » Fri 16 Apr 2010, 12:12:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'A')s for "free snacks," the only way you qualify for foodstamps (with no children) is if you are literally destitute -- that means no car, no money in the bank, and all your worldly assets can't total more than something like $500. And after all that, it's a pittance, just assistance buying food (what is it, like $125 per month?)..
Wrong.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Food Stamp Eligibility
As of January 1, 2008, most households no longer face a resource test when determining eligibility for food stamp benefits. This means that the household’s assets (stocks, savings and retirement accounts, etc.) are not considered when determining eligibility. Please note that if you apply for food stamp benefits, you still may be asked to provide information regarding such resources.
You Can Now Have Savings and Qualify for Food StampsIn New York State, the Food Stamp Program now allows you to have more money in a checking or savings account, or even a retirement account or college savings account, without affecting your eligibility for food stamp benefits. As of January 1, 2008, most households applying for food stamp benefits no longer have to pass a savings/resource test in order to get food stamp benefits. This means having money in a savings, checking or retirement account, or having other resources, may not keep you from being eligible for food stamp benefits, as long as you meet the income guidelines.
Asset resource tests vary by state, but the following are some assets that may be excluded.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Excluded Resources - SNAP (Food Stamps)
Some types of assets that are not included are:
· the household's home and lot,
· household and personal goods,
· the cash value of life insurance,
· earmarked assets (i.e., payments the household must use for a certain purpose or be subject to legal sanction if the funds are not used for the intended purpose),
· Earned Income Tax Credit refunds, if within 12 months of receiving the refund,
· funeral contracts,
· pensions,
· mortgages,
· burial lots,
· income-producing properties,
· land contracts,
· business loan-related assets,
· assets used for self-support/employment,
· real property and other assets which annually produce income consistent with their fair market value,
· certain vehicles such as vehicles used at least 50% of the time to produce income, and
· deeds of trust and other property agreements if they produce income consistent with their fair market value.
Assets are also excluded if their cash value is not accessible to the household. Some examples of inaccessible assets are:
· property in probate,
· security deposits,
· real property for sale,
· irrevocable trust funds, and
· assets unlikely to produce a significant amount of funds if sold.
One of the largest local myths is that people receiving foodstamps can't own newer vehicles, multiple vehicles etc.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]States’ Vehicle Asset Policies in the Food Stamp Program
SUMMARY OF STATE POLICIES
* 33 states exclude the value of all vehicles;
* 1 state excludes the value of all vehicles for families with children and 1 vehicle for all other households;
* 1state excludes vehicles based on the use of the vehicle (exempting most vehicles);
* 7 states exclude the value of one vehicle per adult and then apply federal food stamp rules to subsequent vehicles;
* 5 states exclude the value of one vehicle per household and then apply federal food stamp or similar rules to subsequent vehicles;
* 4 states apply a less restrictive fair market value or equity test (generally to the first vehicle and then apply food stamp rules to additional vehicles).
Which Option Are States Using?
* 26 states are aligning to TANF-funded cash assistance;
* 11 states are aligning to TANF/MOE-funded non-cash assistance, primarily child care;
* 11 states are using categorical eligibility;
* 3 states are using a combination of categorical eligibility and aligning to TANF/MOE-funded assistance.
Thirty three states exclude the value of all vehicles[3] and fourteen more exclude at least one vehicle per household. Of these fourteen states, seven exclude one vehicle per adult and five exclude one vehicle per household. Of the two remaining states, Alaska excludes cars necessary for transportation to meet basic needs and Maine excludes all vehicles for households with children and one vehicle per household for other households.
Only four states have not exempted any vehicles, although they have increased the $4,650 FMV exemption for one or more vehicles; for example, Texas excludes the FMV up to $15,000 for one vehicle. In most states with a more generous treatment of a limited number of vehicles, federal food stamp vehicle rules typically apply to any additional vehicles.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=554
by Narz » Sat 17 Apr 2010, 20:04:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'S')ome people feel this places an unfair burden on the rich.
Yeah, my mom feels that way.
Really it's not the "rich" that pays though, just the upper-middle-class. The rich funnel all their money thru corporations & pay far less (percentagewise) than the U. Middle Class.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
-
Narz
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
-
(And, by the way, the inflation that government overspending on inefficient programs leads to in the long run, shafts the poor the most, as well).
