digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Food Stamp Use at Record Pace

nytimes.com — Driven by a painful mix of layoffs and rising food and fuel prices, the number of Americans receiving food stamps is projected to reach 28 million in the coming year, the highest level since the aid program began in the 1960s.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • LewP, on 03/31/2008, -6/+7Sad
    • Monk22, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4more likely they are being sold for cash more frequently. come to south city in st. louis, mo youll have any number of offers to buy foodstamps. i just tell them i already paid for them and your welcome. glad to see they are making a profit off my tax dollars.
      • Terr01, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Well, let's think about this. How could this work, economically?

        Perhaps... The people buying stamps are exchanging a general form of wealth (money) for a more specific one (food vouchers.) This suggests the buyers are hungry. The people selling stamps just want to use the money they get for non-food? (Are they paying off their credit card interest? What?)

        Or perhaps your state just has a wacky implementation.
        • Monk22, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6they sell them for half what they are worth (e. they sell a $100 book or whatever for $50) so they can buy crack about 2 blocks down from my house.
  • sny1120, on 03/31/2008, -20/+18.....SO?
    • dcbebop, on 03/31/2008, -3/+15I'm assuming this is a shot at quoting Cheney, otherwise you are truly an *****.
  • DDMX, on 03/31/2008, -31/+27Food stamps, welfare, etc is just another form of socialism to me. It isn't right.
    • scabbers, on 03/31/2008, -11/+25Maybe a hungry person should just beat you up and rob you... much more in line with your views.
      • doctechnical, on 03/31/2008, -9/+6Have you taken a good look at the people using food stamps? "Hungry" is not a word I would use in the description. America has the fattest "poor" people on the planet.
        • Acewrap, on 03/31/2008, -5/+13They're fat because they are too poor to afford a healthy diet. Crap food with empty calories is cheap.
          • doctechnical, on 03/31/2008, -6/+6Yeah, compared to peanut butter and cocoa-crispies rice and beans is just expensive as all hell.
            Take a look at the role-reversal - back in the 30s, 40s and 50s, prior to the Great Socialist Society poor folk were eating things like rice and beans because they were cheap, while richer folk were getting fat on expensive food. Now the rich are dieting their asses off and the "poor" are sucking down gravy like there's no tomorrow.
          • DarkSamus, on 03/31/2008, -3/+3dottechnical,
            because a big juicy burger is 99¢ while rice and beans can cost you over $1.50 unless made at home. Almost all brand names are always lying about their products whether they're food products or clothes to make you just buy buy buy. Nobody gives a ***** about the people
        • TimDigg, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-co ...

          income doesn't correlate to obesity, its all over the place really....

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ...

          I also think some nations tend to deal with obesity better as a genetic factor...ever notice somoans are usually obese...almost as a rule, but deal with it better than most americans could


          In my personal situation, my health is inversely proportional to my income situation

          the more money I make, the better I tend to eat, I'm less stressed, can afford a gym etc
          • CiXeL, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3all we're eating these days is balls of fat molded into different shapes and colored different colors and then soaked in preservatives.
            anyone tried to eat a red delicious apple from the grocery store lately?
            red it certainly is but delicious it isnt. flavorless, mealy and coated with excessive layers of wax.
            i tried to go on a health kick eating them as snacks but they were always bruised and tasted terrible. finally i reached into the bag once and squished a large dead fly that was sitting on the top of the fruit. i was ready to puke and gave up on the idea of eating apples.
          • zeromous, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Try granny smiths. they survive the transporation from Chile a lot better in the winter months.

            You still can't beat an Ontario, or midwestern apple during the late summer though.
          • Terr01, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I'm more of a Braeburn fan myself. Get the ones that are the most yellow/green as you can for the best crunch.

            "Red delicious"? Eeew. Far too mealy.
        • SammyJr, on 03/31/2008, -2/+8***** food = big gut and nutrient starved. Its tragic when its cheaper to buy boxed crap rather than fresh fruits, vegetables, and meat.
          • TimDigg, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4or when a double cheeseburger at mcdonalds is cheaper than an apple or orange
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/31/2008, -3/+6Maybe instead of forced socialism, we could use actual heartfelt charity? Perhaps then, without some faceless and endless "entity" people will feel less inclined to just take and even defraud the system. Why is it that anytime there needs an answer, the government is the one to have to provide it?
        • serif69, on 03/31/2008, -4/+5Entitlement. The first deadly sin of a social program.
        • TimDigg, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1I think it comes from the belief that people really don't give a *****. For example most people who give to charity wouldn't do so if there wasn't "something in it for me"...in this case a tax receipt.

          To be fair, I find GENUINE generosity differs, depending on what part of the states you're in

          for example in the red states you see a lot of more people live in small tight nit towns and communities........which mean if you're sick and can't afford it....the town doctor has no problem helping out...if you've broke down the town mechanic will help out if you're really in need.....almost like Leave it to beaver or something like that

          I assume Anarkelncarnate...you live in small town kinda scenario...where everyone knows everyone so there is no need for govt

          where there is always someone who can help outside the govt...where the communities are more organized and together, where everyone knows everyone elses business...
          • AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2I live in the most populous state, per square mile, in the country. I have no small towns, as they run into the next town and the next town, basically. I just believe that charity is helping others and socialism is taking from one group to give to another. Help is not always what it is about.
          • Terr01, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1As a snarky side note, "red states" are some of the biggest takers of "redistributed wealth" when it comes to federal tax dollars. Taxes on people in California pay for highways in Alaska.
      • Rojahon, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Of course, your statement assumes that poverty would be of at least an equal level in a society where government was not involved in the economy, but over 200 years of studies in free market economics suggest quite the opposite.

        And also, "hungry people beating people up and robbing them for food money" is not far from the truth. They do so in an indirect way, through the guns of the government. Although I don't know many people who let it get as far as them getting beaten up. They usually give in to the all too serious threats. So if "hungry people beating people up for food money" is more in lines with his views, then it would seem that your support of food stamps is no different in any moral since, *according to you*, from being against food stamps. So I don't understand your argument.

        Of course, you are clearly trying to hide behind the "I'm the humanitarian and your the evil brute" defense, which sets up a false dichotomy, but that's a whole different issue. The bottom line is you can't claim to be a humanitarian if you don't support human rights, and you can't support human rights without supporting property rights, for numerous reasons I won't list here, but are pretty obvious when given much thought. But your support of theft for food money, through the hands of the government, is a blatant rejection of property rights. So it would seem that you are anything but a humanitarian.
    • DrDragun, on 03/31/2008, -4/+25Food stamps are way better than welfare. At least they force a person to buy food not spend their welfare on new shoes or a nail job.
      • DDMX, on 03/31/2008, -3/+8I'll agree with you on that
      • ricksite, on 03/31/2008, -5/+2Many people on food stamps have an income. Having food stamps frees up their income to buy non-essentials (i.e. beer, cigarettes, snack food, etc...)
      • Solstice, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6Except that most food stamp systems are chock full of fraud. There's always someone who will exchange food stamps for cash. It may be pennies on the dollar, but it's still cash to buy new shoes or a nail job.
        • CiXeL, on 03/31/2008, -7/+2shut down the border and this problem will go away.
          i see rafts ditched on the shore in they florida keys and in the mangroves in south miami all the time.
          just last week 50 something new immigrants came ashore from cuba, most of them on smugglers boats where they get dropped off right onshore.
          • CiXeL, on 03/31/2008, -6/+1why am i dug down for making an observation i can see with my own two eyes 7 minutes from my house?
          • art42, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3"shut down the border and this problem will go away."
            You observed that? Me thinks not. RTA.
        • Terr01, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Chock full of fraud? Okay, I'll bite: Source? Evidence? Anything besides Reagan's long-discredited "welfare queen" example?
      • cdahlkvist, on 03/31/2008, -3/+6Except it doesn't really work that way.

        When I use to work in downtown Minneapolis I worked right next to the welfare office, the same place people would get their food stamps.

        Many would stand out on the corner offering their food stamps for sale. They would try to sell you $100 worth of food stamps for $50. The police did nothing, the welfare office did nothing and people would buy them.

        I believe they have gone to an electronic "benefits" system now but I am sure they have found ways to get cash out of that too.

        Welfare is a great idea on paper but when it comes to practice it is exploited constantly. Most people on welfare are "single mothers" that have 9 kids. They won't get married because then they would lose their welfare. When they want a raise they just have another child, thus more "benefits".

        The terrible part is that they tend to breed a habit. Their children grow up with no work ethic and eventually begin sucking off the welfare teet.

        We need to reform welfare now so we can get the scammers out of the system so the people that genuinely need it can get a decent amount to live off of while they are in transition.
        • TimDigg, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5I agree with this scenario....here in DC we have tons of job fairs....not only that, but they are held on weekends so people can actually get to them....and wonderful public transit to boot


          We always wanna say "I'd rather teach a man to fish than give him one"

          yet....there are FAR more people giving out fish than people trying to teach people how to fish....maybe because we live in such a privledged society, many people who have fish don't know how to catch them

          More job fairs, more job training, more trades....etc....immigration doesn't help though
      • laughandsing, on 03/31/2008, -7/+1If you get food stamps you are on welfare. They make you be dependent on welfare. There is no option just to get food stamps.
        • Y2JCrisis, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5That is completely inaccurate. And food stamps and welfare are different on a state to state basis.
          • laughandsing, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4Well in md thats how the system works. I know a woman who tried to get food stamps for a 3 month period to get back on her feet, and they told her that she needed to foreclose on her house and go on welfare in order to do so. The system is corrupt. Hopefully there are better systems than in this state.
      • Derrekito, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Poor people shouldn't wear shoes?
    • karel747, on 03/31/2008, -5/+13Well, ***** me for going to school full time, working part time, paying all my expenses and having to eat food, with no help from the folks. Not all of us are privileged, you know...
      • StinkBait, on 03/31/2008, -9/+8Maybe you should go to school part time and work full time, instead of living off my paycheck.
        • Derrekito, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3It really amazes me how many assholes there are in the world; but then someone had to have voted for Bush... twice. If it were not for food stamps I would not be where I am today.
          • laughandsing, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2Telling someone to work for what they need is now considered being an *****?
        • karel747, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2Oh yeah, so I'm to choose between living a ***** life for 4 years, versus living a ***** life for 8? Forgive me for trying to get out of the lower class via education - I suppose you'd prefer if I stayed there longer, wallowing in the filth which minimum wage affords. Well, a big, hearty "***** you" to that. It's not like I'm sitting around eating *****; I'm actually trying to do something with my life, and damned if I'm the only one in this situation... You all should be proud that you're marginally contributing to people trying to get out of poverty, to live a good life like the rest of you - it doesn't bother me for a second that my taxes provide help for people in need.

          Besides, you act as if I'm somehow stealing from you, or "living" off of you... Last I checked, I pay taxes too.
    • laughandsing, on 03/31/2008, -12/+6Well isnt this what the democratic party wants? Everything socialized everything and high taxes? I for one would like to live in the democratic republic we were made to be. Not a country based on socialism.
      • karel747, on 03/31/2008, -3/+9Except socialism is an economical model, not a political one (e.g., democratic republic).
        • laughandsing, on 03/31/2008, -4/+2But you cant have one and the other at the same time.
          • SammyJr, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2Try all of Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia.....
          • laughandsing, on 03/31/2008, -6/+3Have you seen their definition of health care for example? Not my idea of a good system. Free enterprise is and always will be the best solution.
          • TimDigg, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3you mean private hospitals where they nickel and dime you and REDEFINE what care is?

            did you read the article about private hospitals on digg recently where the govt had to step in, just get them TO USE CLEAN INSTRUMENTS on patients.....rediculous....

            whats next....patented procedures that only certain hospitals can do

            you wanna go to a hospital where they reuse needles to keep costs down?

            private doc: alright Tim all done, your eye exam

            me: umm you only did one eye

            private doc: oh yea the other eye costs extra....
          • karel747, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2"But you cant have one and the other at the same time." - Nonsense. Political practice (i.e., how the people are governed) has nothing to do with economical practice (i.e., how the people sustain themselves). You can have a capitalistic monarchy, communist democracy, or socialist oligarchical society, among other combinations.

            The fact that most societies are a combination of socialist and capitalist democratic systems is a result of a sort of natural selection of the most efficient systems which allows the most proliferation of the individuals in the society. You're right in that some combinations are difficult to sustain; a capitalist totalitarian society, for example, is conflicting because of the basic conflict between the individual's efforts and the boss man's - but you can't conclude that, therefor, capitalism does not work. A socialist economy does not entail an inefficient society by itself - that's the way it seems to most people because socialist systems have often been used by totalitarian and authoritarian societies, which are almost always doomed to failure regardless of economical practices.

            In my opinion, the ideal situation for a society is a combination between a socialistic and capitalistic democratic republic... One where regular people can't exclusively live off of welfare (and thus they need to work to make end's meat), while society provides help to those who genuinely need it. Sounds familiar to me...

            And on health care... Capitalistic goals should not influence people's health. Period. If you or I were diagnosed with leukemia tomorrow, and we didn't have the money to pay for the therapy, a free enterprise would necessitate that either we die because we don't have the money, or we get sucked into debt to pay for our lives. In effect, the rich live while the poor are royally screwed, regardless of choice. It's a nonsense system which has caused, and will continue to cause much duress to people who are already in heart-ache and pain.
          • laughandsing, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2So....we should change to a system like canada's where you have to wait 9 months to get approval to go to a doctor's for pregnancy. Last I checked the baby would already be born. Not my idea of a good system.
          • karel747, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3It takes a long time (on average, ranging between 1 - 4 months, depending on which study you read) to go through an entire treatment in some provinces of Canada... That much is true. But consider why that is: Because everyone has access to it - the rich and poor get equal treatment. Actually, to be very accurate, the rich have the option of consulting private medicine rather than the public one for quicker assistance. Regardless, everyone is treated, and that's the important thing.

            Absolutely, there are problems with the Canadian health care system, but that doesn't mean a better system can't be established, one where everyone gets access to medical professional when they need it. It would take extraordinary blindness to claim that the US's health care system is perfect, merely because **some** people can get relatively quick treatment for their afflictions.

            Also, there are many other factors which lay outside of economics which affect the health care system - education, for example, is prime, since if not for a sound education, there would be no interests for people to become doctors. But thats another topic entirely.
          • laughandsing, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1I agree that the US's system is not perfect. But going to socialized medicine would be a bad idea. In my opinion I add.
    • izackcarson, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5Have you ever heard of old people, the disabled, or minimum wage jobs? What to you propose to do for people who are poor?
      • laughandsing, on 03/31/2008, -6/+2We have education programs, programs for the disabled and social security. There are options to better oneself. It takes self-motivation. I propose that those who are poor work to get ahead and not depend on their government for everything. There are plenty of non-profit organizations willing to help as well. We do not live in a country without options. We do live in a country however that you can move up the ladder to a higher 'class'. If we have socialized systems that pay for everything, where is the motivation to better onself? there is none. If you aer working at a minimum wage job, work harder. You do not have to stay at a minimum wage paying job. If you work hard you will succeed. You just can't have everything at once without the hardwork. Have you ever worked minimum wage? I know that at my first job I made 5.15 an hour, I worked hard and went to school and will continue to educate myself to get a better paying job with benefits so the government will not be responsible for me. That is the way things should be.
        • Y2JCrisis, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3And I'm sure nobody ever gave you anything. I'm sure you got no help from anyone. *****. There are very few people in this country who were able to put themselves through college and get a good enough job to support a family without help along the way.
          • laughandsing, on 03/31/2008, -3/+1I'm sure that I gave things up. I have paid for everything that I have. My parents nor the government had given me anything. People can start out at community colleges and work their way up. Its not easy to work full time and go to school ful time, but it can be done. The government is not to be responsible for everything.
          • art42, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6"People can start out at community colleges..."
            Gov't supported. Tuition does NOT cover the costs of community college. OMG SOCIALISM!!!!
          • laughandsing, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3The government funds all colleges and universities. Do you really think that community colleges are the only ones? Its about making choices. You dont have to go to a college that costs 50,000 for a year of tuition to get a good education.
    • Midtowner, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Making free money and food available in the first place gives people an easy out, then it makes them feel dependent on the system, trapped and hopeless. Life on food stamps is by no means a life of luxury, but you can do it and not have to take any risks (like getting an entry level job which might actually pay less than welfare until you get promoted, a raise, or a better job). I don't like the idea of letting people go hungry, but even in the 1930's, during the Great Depression, people were hungry, but no one starved in the darkness.
    • Y2JCrisis, on 03/31/2008, -2/+5Why do you say "socialism" like it's a dirty word? Sometimes a little socialism goes a long way.
    • Olfster, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Protecting non earned income of investors is socialism. Giving tax breaks to oligopoly oil companies, which are more profitable than any company in history, is socialism if you ask me. Allowing people, made up mostly of children, to eat is just, well, human. Not socialist or communist or even capitolist, just human.
  • DrDragun, on 03/31/2008, -3/+36Even better than the government's food stamp program is the invention of the dollar menu. You can get an entire day's worth of calories for $2.
    • zengonzo, on 03/31/2008, -2/+15The cost is simply deferred to health care bills later in life.

      With interest.
      • directrix13, on 03/31/2008, -5/+1Its not like the ***** you'd be getting with food stamps would be any better for you.
    • nesagwa, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2When did McDonalds start taking EBT?
    • karel747, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6And a cardiac attack at the age of 35.
      • xtmno3, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Problem solved on both fronts, then! No need for social security!
    • NJank, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3so that makes it a combination of a delayed payment program and a short call?
    • olbap, on 03/31/2008, -0/+8Well, doesn't that go to show you how ***** up the food industry is? The more complicated the food, the cheaper it is. The more wholesome, healthy and simple the food is, the more expensive. Basically, eating healthy is for people who can afford it. The rest of us live on those dollar menus. I've had some tough times in my life and I am very thankful for $1 salads and chicken sandwiches. It might not be the best, but when that's all one can afford, it is gold.
  • Shadwell, on 03/31/2008, -23/+14People like free stuff.
    • Zerohawk, on 03/31/2008, -2/+15This isn't about free, it is about survival. Trying to make it on minimum wage is bordering on impossible now, and there are quite a few Americans who find themselves in this situation. As the cost of living continues to increase and our economy continues to dive, people need to find some way to live.
      • ricksite, on 03/31/2008, -7/+3The problem is that many "poor" people in this country have two-three cars, a house, pets, multiple tvs, etc... If they managed their money better, they wouldn't need food stamps. It not only screws over the tax payers, it screws over the people who actually do need welfare.
      • OralCavity, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2i can make up "facts" too! isn't it fun?
      • Jashobeam5, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1The minimum wage is for teenagers and others just entering the work force. Most factory workers, even those without a high school diploma make dobule the min. wage. I know of some who make 6 figures, no college education and not in a management position.

        I've never been in a welfare house without at least one TV. I've been in some with 2 or 3 TVs, 2 or 3 cars and other electronics and most people I know on welfare own a cell phone.
    • gak001, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2People like to eat.
  • Zerohawk, on 03/31/2008, -9/+18This is just another sign on how our economy is taking a large hit, and how it very much is having an effect on our daily lives.
    • isuisorisuaint, on 03/31/2008, -13/+7or it could be that more people are growing increasingly lazy thereby using the govt as a crutch.
      • OralCavity, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2that could be proven by how lazy your response is.
    • AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2But but but...Booosh says the economy is only "slowing down a bit"
      • CiXeL, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2take ANYTHING bush says and think of the opposite for an honest picture of whats going on.
        hes very accurately inaccurate.
        • OralCavity, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1the opposite of what the poster replied to would be that the economy is speeding up a lot.
          • AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2its actually the rule of 3s. If bush says we're slowing down. Multiply that by 3. If he says it will be easy, divide that by 3.
  • Bonksnp, on 03/31/2008, -12/+4YOU GONNA EAT YOUR CORNBREAD?
  • wcccrockaholic, on 03/31/2008, -16/+18How can you call food stamps and welfare "not right"? Governments exist (ideally) to serve their people. Who is the government supposed to help if not the people who actually need help?
    • isuisorisuaint, on 03/31/2008, -10/+19What about those that can help themselves but choose not to?
      • cdahlkvist, on 03/31/2008, -7/+4That is your typical welfare recipient. They could help themselves but they prefer the lazy route.
        • OralCavity, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4and what is your source of reference for this huge generalization?
          • Mrstupid7, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2Ronald Reagan, of course, although you shouldn't ask for his sources as he is a completely honest god.
          • cdahlkvist, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Well, a trip to the grocery store or local mall within the first week of any given month is a good hint. EBT cards everywhere. These people are driving brand new SUVs, wearing $300 tennis shoes, the latest "urban" styles.

            They have the ability to go out shopping when they get their welfare money so I suspect they are perfectly qualified to get jobs.

            It's typically the "single ghetto mother" with 10 kids in tow. All her kids have the lastest toys and clothing and she hasn't worked a day in her life.

            Sure, taking care of kids is a job but there are plenty of people that take care of their kids AND earn a living.
        • art42, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3In CA if you aren't working or disabled you must show you're looking job hunting to get benefits. They also must attend workshops that assist them in finding employment.
      • omegared, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4like the 17% of all children that live in the USA that live in poverty? Or do the rich that pay the same amount of social security as the middle class, and pay less tax?
    • yojiffyskippy, on 03/31/2008, -16/+23Spoken like a true liberal. Here's a thought, some of us poor, working, taxpaying people are sick of supporting free loading, lazy people who prefer to lay around on the couch watching Springer to getting up and looking for work. And before you get your lib-tard panties in a bunch, I'm not saying all people receiving government hand-outs fit this description but if you were to take a close look at those receiving hand-outs, you would find that most of them are more than capable of getting a job. Sure it may not be a glamorous job like they see on TV but it will be an honest wage earning job. And yes, some of them may need to get two jobs to support their lifestyle. Been there done that!
      • isuisorisuaint, on 03/31/2008, -8/+4i love how we're getting dugg down...***** unbelievable.
        • TimDigg, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5its tough man, I agree with what you're saying, I think where libs worry though is the fact that there are probably FAR more lazy americans who HAVE jobs, that its irrelevant to complain about the poor

          for example a buddy of mine who is a lazy sack of potatoes who gets jobs because they are given to him...well paying ones too, jobs he couldn't win if he really had to compete...

          on one hand we really have some poor who are lazy, thing is we have probably the same proportion of middle-class, rich who JUST AS lazy...but have more luck, connections etc...

          so sometimes its almost benign to say the poor are lazy especially when you have co-workers like I do who say "sorry I was 2 hours late, had to go to starbucks" "ok lets take a 2 hour lunch" "lets go home early".......all in the same day...everday for years

          and then those same people complain that their taxes are too high and don't wanna pay for some lazy bum

          I think Chomsky said it best "they try to teach, market discipline and hard work to the poor, yet the rich need safety nets and golden parachutes and welfare and all of that"

          How come big banks get bailed out of making bad decisions, while your avg guy gets nothing for his bad decisions...

          Why do you think most businesses operate in blue states?....because thats where all the welfare is...even though they pay higher taxes, they still make more money

          the president of my old company said it best "would you rather make 50% of 10 million or 90% of 5 million"

          and he's right...

      • directrix13, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2You qualify your statement, by looking at a stereotypical opposing viewpoint, but then proceed to take a condescending tone with the people who theoretically represent that opposing viewpoint. You really know how to get through to people don't you? Why did you even bother commenting in a pseudo balanced way, when you obviously have no respect and no intent to learn about the other side of the argument?
      • cdahlkvist, on 03/31/2008, -3/+4We tried to require these free-loaders in Minneapolis to work jobs like picking up trash along the highways, picking up trash in parks, etc in order to get welfare.

        They sued. Apparently these are "grants" and we can't require them to do anything for it.

        They had a huge rally here with nice signs and pamphlets and fliers. I told one of them that if he put that much effort into a job he wouldn't need welfare and of course I was labeled a racist for that comment.

        I know there are people that have a legitimate need but the majority don't. We need to have Workfare, not Welfare.
        • cubicledrone, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Wait, you think putting effort into a job leads to financial stability? Really?
          • Mrstupid7, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1No, it doesn't. Work a minimum wage job where you can be fired just because someone feels like it.
          • Jashobeam5, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1BTDT. Then you find another job, then another, until you finally find a job that will pay the bills.
          • cubicledrone, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2News flash: Everyone can be fired because someone feels like it, no matter how much they make. That's part of the reason our economy sucks. Nobody can buy a home and pay a mortgage when they get fired and have to chase a paycheck 500 miles every six months because some fatass lying cheat ***** decided to change paradigms.
      • SammyJr, on 03/31/2008, -2/+4Honestly, I'd rather pay the person to sit around watching Springer. If you force them to work, you're going to get exceptionally poor quality. This poor quality hurts their employer's business. I'd rather not force employers to hire crappy welfare-to-work programs and have them deal with loss of business due to their crappy workers. Overall, its cheaper and better for everyone if they lazy just get basic sustinance and can sit and watch Springer all day.
        • cdahlkvist, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3I agree except that Minneapolis was going to make them clean up parks and highways and such. You know, the things that criminals usually do as community service.
      • temjrpgh, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1The lack of free trade starting at the top with monetary policy is preventing a healthy economy. Government macroeconomic policy (dabbling) created the problem that the government is now subsidizing with food stamps. I wonder if we borrowed or printed the money the food stamps represent, because the governments (state and federal) are broke.

        I feel sorry for people on food stamps because of their lack of autonomy.
    • herkimer65, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2Because the government sticks a gun in my face, takes my money and gives it away. It's easy to be benevolent with other peoples' money.
    • CrazyZ, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2You're an ass. I will never qualify for food stamps. I simply make too much, but what if I stumble? Who helps me and mine then? Why am I left to fend for myself? Why is my salary a factor at all? I need help, the fed should help right? The fed takes more from me in taxes than a good portion of people make and I will recieve no help if I stumble.
      • Mrstupid7, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3There are unemployment and workman's compensation for you. Don't pretend there's no welfare for you either.
    • Tetraca, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I think it would be better for the government to create preventative programs, so that situations in which our people need food stamps do not occur. Rather than giving them food stamps and letting them blow their lives away on government funds we could be using for scientific research, we should give them an education in a low-wage job they would be at least half-ways interested in, and give them that job. Heck, if they're really serious they could get some higher wage job training down the road.
      • cubicledrone, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1But make absolutely sure its a low-wage job. That way they won't get all uppity and try to buy a house or something.
        • Tetraca, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1The government isn't going to be able to give you anything much higher than a lower bracket, menial task job. We could give some tax breaks to lower income individuals that will go to college and get a job, but anything more would drain and cut budget from other areas which need funding.
          • cubicledrone, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1What about the people who went to college and got fired? $100 billion worth of education is being wasted in this country right now. One hundred billion dollars worth. What could those people be inventing and building right now if some gangrene-infected asscrack hadn't fired them so he could pump his numbers for the next quarter?
    • olbap, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Welfare can work if there is an active and involved government which DOES NOT ALLOW people to take advantage of the system. This is the problem with government. Welfare, food stamps, universal health care are not bad ideals - people some times genuinely need help. To all those who disagree, go find a heart. The problem is the inefficiency of the government which allows people to live on these social services. Social services should be a safety net, nothing more. It should not be a way of life.
      • Jashobeam5, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Taxation has nothing to do with the heart. If you want to be generous, be generous. Making other citizens do that with a threat of imprisonment is not a "heart" it's stealing.
    • Olfster, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Well, currently they help OIl companies by reducing their tax burdens. And most recently, they helped people generating non earned income through investments, by backing the investments of investment banks with US tax payer money. So, it would seem the government is here to help...... Big Business and Wall Street. What's new though?
    • flip2trip, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1Boom! There it is, the Liberal Mantra--"The Government exists to SERVE YOU" This moronic, asinine, retarded belief is what will eventually be the downfall of the good ole USA.

      And to answer your question, people are supposed to help each other and they used to until some morons decided we needed to let Government "HELP" the people and then we the people said Ok Gubberment you do it. This basically released people from their moral responsibility to help their fellow man. We have been headed down the crap-hole of socialism ever since.
  • doktorrocket, on 03/31/2008, -2/+30FTA: "The percentage of Americans receiving food stamps was higher after a recession in the 1990s, but actual numbers are expected to be higher this year."

    It's amazing the number of "all time highs" you can set when you use absolute numbers with an ever-increasing population.
    • brjohnson789, on 03/31/2008, -5/+2True, but things like poverty should not rise as fast as the population, and should even fall, if the economy actually were growing. WIth technological advances always occuring and economic efficiencies always increasing, the only reason incomes do not rise on average is if there is too much wasteful spending, such as spending on getting your tax returns done. On top of stagnant average wage growth, there is a big disperity between wage growths of the upper and lower wage brackets, another indicator of a poor functioning economy.
      • BESTenemy, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1In a capitalist industrial society with growth comes increase in class separation. Wealth segregates around the upper class and the lower class becomes the working slaves. The population becomes increasingly urbanized, in other words, production jobs get traded for service jobs. Property gets accumulated in the hands of the very few. Instead of living off production, many begin living off credit, as service jobs produce nothing of physical value. Saved assets become collateral assets and eventually get reposessed by the rich. Poor get more poor. Rich get richer.
  • VoodooPunk, on 03/31/2008, -22/+20Yay!! The libs must be so happy. Here in Texas they have advertisements on the radio and tv trying to get more people to get on food stamps. It's the socialist utopia libs have been hoping for.
    • warsql, on 03/31/2008, -8/+3Exactly what I was thinking. They have those ads in Ohio too. When I saw the title, my first thought was what an effective marketing campaign the food stamp industry has.
      • Derrekito, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3Well they should be allowed to get the word out. Although my first reaction would be, "what a waist of money for advertisements" but then the government spends millions on propaganda ads dealing with Cannabis.
        There is still guidelines that must be met in order to qualify for food stamps.
        • Mrstupid7, on 03/31/2008, -3/+1Education is a bad thing. Look how well not educating the population on sex, drugs, and finance works!
    • doctechnical, on 03/31/2008, -5/+4Same thing in Ohio - they advertise the foodstamps. If they don't get as many people signed up this year as last, then there may be budget cuts. And budget cuts mean some state bureaucrats could lose their jobs, and there's no way they're going to let that happen.
      This is more about bureaucracy than hunger.
    • ZenMojo, on 03/31/2008, -2/+5...It's called keeping people from starving to death, champ.
      • Jashobeam5, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3I sincerly doubt you've ever been on welfare or ever met a starving American in your life. Before welfare people who could worked and those who couldn't depended on charity.
    • olbap, on 03/31/2008, -3/+7The primary difference between a liberal and a conservative is that a conservative is ok with himself for not giving a ***** about other people. They don't mind the government using socialist tactics to bail out corporations or spend billions on defense. Oh, but to help some people eat, to the conservative, that is like the crime of the century. Go find a ***** heart.
      • VoodooPunk, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1The cold hard truth is that conservatives donate more money to private charities than libs. The real difference isn't that libs have a "heart", it's that libs want to give OTHER people's money to the poor so they don't have to feel guilty about not coughing up the dough themselves. You can delude yourself into believing that you're a saintly, caring individual. Of course it's really not very hard to advocate taking money from other people and giving it to the poor when you get to keep your wallet safely in your pocket.
  • Abomonog, on 03/31/2008, -9/+10Sadly this is to be expected when greed and corruption occupy the upper tiers of both our government and business.
    It won't be long when shanty towns return en-masse' to the American landscape at the rate we're going.
    • Jashobeam5, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2You libs pine for the days of the Great Depression. Conservatives dream of a day when people learn to depend on themselves and do not need libs to spoon feed them a line about "caring."
  • o0joshua0o, on 03/31/2008, -7/+15I tried to use food stamps once, but the food came back with the words "insufficient postage" written on it.
  • IronDonut, on 03/31/2008, -6/+11Well... we had a multi-year drunken debt based party. Now it's time for the hangover.

    Rather than letting the .com bubble pop and deflate and let the economic imbalances self correct, the administration, Federal Reserve, and willing partners in the banking, mortgage, construction and real estate industries puffed up an even bigger bubble in real estate.
  • minox, on 03/31/2008, -3/+12Two things stick out to me as problematic in this article. The first is this:

    "But access by legal immigrants has been partly restored and, in the current decade, the federal and state governments have used advertising and other measures to inform people of their eligibility and have often simplified application procedures."

    The second is this:

    "At the same time, average family incomes among the bottom fifth of the population have been stagnant or have declined in recent years at levels around $15,500, said Jared Bernstein, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington."

    This second quote is troubling because family income is a notoriously unreliable statistic, as anyone who has read a book or article by Thomas Sowell knows. I would like to see the actual years being compared to get the stat from the article. One of the biggest unspoken reasons for a decline in household income is that household sizes have reduced, meaning less members of a household exist to even earn a pay check.
    • cubicledrone, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4So talk about real wage growth. Real wages (measured in 1972 dollars) have DECLINED over the last 35 years. That means, in inflation-adjusted dollars, the average wage today is LESS than it was in 1972. Now compare to the costs of housing, gas, taxes and inflation and you'll understad why we're *****.
      • BESTenemy, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Inflation? Oh, that wouldn't possibly have anything to do with separation from the gold standard in early 70's, would it? Without a constraint we've been printing dollars like crazy, backing new credit with a portion of old credit. What would that be other than a rapid inflation of the monetary suppy. Short-lived illusion of wealth.
  • unkle, on 03/31/2008, -12/+11sure we're going to elect a new president this year, but the bush administration is going to haunt us for years to come
    • slantyeyed, on 03/31/2008, -5/+12welfare and food stamps have been around BEFORE Bush . . . and will still be around after Bush leaves.
      • OralCavity, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2he's not talking about the programs as the problem. he's talking about the economic failures that are making people go on food stamps as the problem.
  • lnxfi, on 03/31/2008, -8/+17Food stamps are the worse idea ever. When I used to work as a cashier in highschool, I would watch people use them to buy fillet mignon and lobster with. I'm not on food stamps and I can't even afford to eat fillet mignon and lobster as often as these people do. They need to revamp it and do it more like the way WIC does it.
    • jaydedragon, on 03/31/2008, -2/+7ugh ugh ugh.. i don't understand where anyone on foodstamps would WASTE their money on that.. a single person gets $155 to last THE WHOLE MONTH... do you really think they are going to go buy the most expensive food on the list when that would mean they'd get to eat for 2 days?? whoever that person was.. they were either a complete idiot or they were lying and getting paid under the table
      • warsql, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Open your eyes.

        http://www.lyricsdepot.com/bone-thugs-n-harmony/1s ...
      • barnett25, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Usually people doing that sort of thing have traded US dollars for the food stamps so that the person who receives food stamps can now buy non-food items (commonly cigarettes or alcohol), and the other person gets tax free food.
      • Midtowner, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Jay, you assume they're not selling drugs to make up the difference.
        • Mrstupid7, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Selling drugs is not as lucrative to the actual salesman than people think. Only the big time pushers make a lot of money.
      • Jashobeam5, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1People pool their resources. Take 3 sisters living together, each on foodstamps. One buys the basics- milk, bread, meat, butter, etc. The second pays for the cell phones, DVDs, etc. The third's income is dispensible.
  • uselessexpert, on 03/31/2008, -5/+20The other question here is, how many of these people are REALLY in need of food stamps, and the ones that are just lying to get them.
    My father owned a "bodega" in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn many years ago, and it was insane the amount of people that you knew could afford to live without food stamps and still got them...

    That whole system is in shambles.
    • Lasereth, on 03/31/2008, -2/+5My fiancee is a social worker and she says that 85% of people who apply for medicaid, food stamps, medicare, any financial government assistance are lying. 85%. And a good portion of them get it anyway because of loopholes they jump through. Some of her clients live a higher standard of living than we do (both of us with 4-year degrees) because they get medicine, food, housing, WIC, etc. for free while we pay for all of that. Sure their family income may be $15k total but when you have no bills that's a lot of money.

      The reason these people sit at home and live better than we do? They say why should we get a job and work hard when we get this for free?
      • Mrstupid7, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1My fiancee is your fiancee's mother and she says your fiancee is lying 93.8% of the time. 93.8%.
  • ColonelJessup, on 03/31/2008, -14/+0Grenudos locos - Los viejos te odian
    Grenudos locos - Viva brujeria
    Grenudos locos - Hermanos borrachos
    • ninjasaurus, on 03/31/2008, -3/+4Sorry, we don't speak crazy around here.
  • mrzack, on 03/31/2008, -4/+10selling out of AMERICA
    Almost all of the American fortune 500 are now in China. two words: Cheap Labor. (also >10% annual growth)
    Paying Americans American 1st world wages is now too much. Doesn't pay to study engineering now in the US when you have to compete with the cheaper wages of India and China. what does pay? Financial gambling stock market mumbo jumbo, Pharmaceuticals, and of course military.

    America is in trouble.
    • Jashobeam5, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1There are more careers in the US than that.

      I also heard of US companies bringing some of their work back home because things didn't work out as they had planned.
      • mrzack, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1you also heard? I also heard with a low US dollar it would help manufacturing. well is it?
  • slantyeyed, on 03/31/2008, -6/+26if you're reading this with your own computer and a high speed internet connection and you still need food stamps, I don't feel sorry for you.
    • Jashobeam5, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3You can get a computer pretty cheap at Goodwill or companies upgrading and giving away their old ones. In some areas internet connection is "free" to all (paid for with taxes). This is not the 1980s. Owning a computer is not a sign of wealth.
    • jaydedragon, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2agreed and how do you know that that person didn't get the computer more than 2 years ago when they DID have money.. or that it was a gift? also how do you know that their highspeed connection isn't stolen from someone elses wifi in the neighborhood.. or they live in a house with other roommates and combine their bill.. in CA high speed internet and no tv is $50 4 people living in the house and your bill is $12.50.. you are making waaaay too many assumptions
  • FearFactory, on 03/31/2008, -9/+6Back when the internet starting taking off around 1997 and everyone was crashing AOL people used to come through my checkout line with foodstamps. They would be bragging about how they just got a $3000.00 computer and got into da intarnet.
  • mikeymondavi, on 03/31/2008, -2/+11The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. -H. L. Mencken
  • MiamiRox, on 03/31/2008, -5/+13There are so many people using food stamps because apparently it's so easy to fraudulently acquire them.
    Who the ***** is honestly approving these people? I know far too many low lives that get stamps, who don't really need them.
  • markgl, on 03/31/2008, -3/+6i need to get in on this! I have a good job but i seem broke all the time with crazy heating bills, gas for my car, and everything else. I want free food too!
  • betasp, on 03/31/2008, -5/+3Wasn't the eligibility requirements lowered a couple of years ago? Seems like more people taking the free hand-outs.
  • strafefire, on 03/31/2008, -5/+13FTA:"Driven by a painful mix of layoffs and rising food and fuel prices..."

    Many of the above digger comments:
    "Get a job bitch"
    "Stop living off my paycheck"
    "Stop being lazy"

    When is actuality, a lot of the people already had jobs, and lost THEM!

    But, let's not pay attention to that part there. Nope, not at all, because EVERYONE that uses food stamps are incredibly lazy people, who don't do anything, and just mooch off of everyone in America. Nothing to see here people, turn around, just a bunch of lazy people who were laid off because their corporate fat cat bosses screwed the pooch accidentally [or purposely. You never know]. But they are ALL lazy, because they were laid off!

    Some of the people on this site just disgust me....
    • barnett25, on 03/31/2008, -3/+4I'm sure most everyone above has little to no problem with people who really need the help. But the fact is that out of all the people I know who get food stamps, only 1 or 2 really need them.
      • ZenMojo, on 03/31/2008, -3/+1You're on Digg. I doubt you or your friends are the target audience for food stamps. GTFO.
      • omegared, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1How do you know these people do not need food stamps? Do you simply believe it?
        • barnett25, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I don't "know" about some of them, but I live in a state where 1 in 6 people receive food stamps. I guess you can draw your own conclusions.
        • Jashobeam5, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Could be the cars they drive, top of the line cellphones, etc. that made Barnett25 come to that conclusion.
        • omegared, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1How do you know these people are living in poverty and are receiving food stamps? Do you also mind that rich people pay less tax than the average middle class family? Did you know any family can deduct interest from a motor home, boat, house from their taxes? Who do you think takes advantage of those deductions the person receiving food stamps? It's a sad day when people justify poverty and kids going hungry, not receiving proper health care and education by saying how tax dollars are wasted. Oh well America have fun paying for your war, while the burden is placed on the lower and middle class while the rich pay less taxes and get richer.
          God Bless America
    • TooSquirrely, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5It's funny how everyone on digg "knows" people abusing food stamps. For such upstanding diggers you guys sure do associate with a lot of "low lives".
      • art42, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Funny how those that "witnessed" abuse do nothing about it.
    • mlirblur, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2I used to work at a Hannaford supermarket. I've witnessed people using EBT cards (automated food stamp cards used in NH) to buy up to 3 or 4 cartons of cigarettes. I was shocked people were allowed to do that.

      Maybe these people once worked hard, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the state does allow people to be dumbasses on taxpayer funds.
      • cubicledrone, on 03/31/2008, -0/+0How many people do you know with a solid middle-class income who own a home and chain smoke? I would guess (and this is just a guess) somewhere around... zilch. Give people a stake, let them get invested and LET THEM SUCCEED and you'll find a lot of these problems go away. But we don't do that in this country. We make absolutely SURE they can't succeed, then blame them for failing.
      • art42, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1If the store allowed food stamps to be used to purchase non-food items the store committed welfare fraud.
        • mlirblur, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1We have a WIC program that is heavily regulated, however we also have the EBT system which I hear frequently referred to as "food stamps", but people still buy whatever the hell they want with it. If the computer doesn't say no, we let 'em buy it. Might be something I'd have added to the list of "Things To Say To Whoever's At Hannaford HQ If I Ever Happen To Be In Scarborough, ME". Really quite odd, for sure.
      • jaydedragon, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2most ebt cards are a combination.. both their food stamps AND their welfare or GA is included on it.. you cannot buy non-food items with food stamps.. but you can use your ebt card... when the card goes thru the user then has the option of choosing cash or food stamps at th register.. if they were paying for cigarettes for the month.. they would have chosen their cash.. and the cash is not subtracted from food stamps.. its like one card with 2 accounts on it
    • CrazyZ, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Yeah, and some of us lost jobs and because we make too much didn't qualify for stamps. it's okay when you are "poor" and need help, but not when you pull your own then suddenly need help.
    • Midtowner, on 03/31/2008, -5/+1If you lost your job, start a damned business.

      My cousin married a Mexican girl who became a citizen a couple years ago. She obviously has a tough time finding work being both a citizen (have to pay payroll taxes and worker's comp for those, so toss out the traditional "Mexican jobs.") Do they live of welfare? Hell no. She cleans houses and makes a decent living.

      If you get laid off and can't find work, there is no reason on Earth that you can't either learn a new skill or start your own business -- mow lawns, clean up construction sites, clean houses and offices. Don't blame corporations. Blame the idiots who expect that they should be taken care of by some paternalistic all-controlling, all-loving government.
      • ZenMojo, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4The vast majority of small businesses end in the first year, Sherlock. IT'S A RECESSION. Until someone proves otherwise, I am labeling everyone complaining about food stamps without a personal anecdote, unlike mlirbir, an idiot.
        • Midtowner, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Some businesses are more successful than others.

          Also, those statistics are skewed. Many of those businesses going "out of business" are turning around and opening up new ones to replace the old ones.
      • cubicledrone, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1The social contract is this: "If you work hard and get an education, you will find a good job and you will succeed." That's the deal between businesses and the working man that has kept this country going for 150 years. But now, businesses aren't delivering the good jobs, so the working man is failing. The end.
        • Jashobeam5, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Then it's time to retrain and move. There are areas in the US that are booming and looking for reliable employees.
          • cubicledrone, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1*****. Wages have been stagnant for 35 years. Give me inflation-indexed wage growth for my education level from 1972 to now and a guaranteed contract and I'll think about it. Otherwise, it's a ***** ripoff, and I'm not going to drag a commute for some whaleass hairpiece whiny ***** so he can shovel my whole department out into the alley next quarter to qualify for his Mazatlan cruise.

            "Retrain and move" is corporate-speak for "bait and switch." I have the degree and the experience. Paid for both with my own money and time. I don't have to retrain and ***** if I'm going to drop the cost of a move without a six-figure guarantee.

            Retrain and move my ass.
    • StinkBait, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1As one of the quoted posters, I'd like to clarify:

      My post was towards someone who made the *choice* to go to school full time and work part time, and feels that I should pick up the slack. I was merely suggesting he switch the two. Yeah, it takes longer to get that degree, but sometimes sacrifices have to be made.
      • Jashobeam5, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Have you ever worked full time and gone to school full time? Now, that is a sacrifice, but it means the person will be a better employee quicker.
        • StinkBait, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Yes, I did. It left very little time for anything but work and school, and is not a lifestyle I could have maintained for longer than the 6 months I did it. I wasn't suggesting the original poster kill themselves to get a degree, hence my suggestion that the school and work swap.
        • cubicledrone, on 03/31/2008, -0/+0It amazes me that people still think middle management ***** give a ***** whether someone has a degree. Its just astounding.
  • izackcarson, on 03/31/2008, -4/+6Remember that food stamps go to the elderly, the disabled, the orphaned, and to those who work but don't get paid a living wage. There are a few mooches in the various programs for sure, but most of the people receiving the help have contributed and/or continue to contribute to society.
    • Midtowner, on 03/31/2008, -3/+3Dugg down for the phrase "living wage."

      • omegared, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Why you don't believe people should be paid a wage their able to live on? Maybe CEO's should layoff some more people to increase their wages even more.
        Dugg up for the use of living wage.
        • Jashobeam5, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1If you pay people more, they spend more. There is no such thing as a living wage. People who cannot live within their means at $8 an hour are going to overspend at $20 an hour.

          I get so sick of people talking about CEOs as if they are not necessary and fire people with no regard to the employees. Do you know how much education and job experience is needed before one can become a CEO? I've known CEOs to keep people on because they knew the person was not the best for the job, but needed that job.
          • omegared, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1do you know most ceo's come from connected families and usually hire their friends and relatives? Look at the connections from people that serve in the white house and than become members of the board or ceo's in corporations.
            the definition of a living wage is to pay a person so they can afford basic things they need to survive (transportation, utilities, food, health care and education). Getting paid $8 is not a living wage, how are you suppose to pay for those needs? Could you live on $8 an hour? So quickly to blame the poor and to come to the defense of the elites without looking at the other side of the argument.
            The average person no matter their education and job experience is not likely to become a CEO. Sure their is the odd case of one or two people making it but most people wont, without coming from the right family.
  • rapincandy, on 03/31/2008, -7/+2im on food stamps. i use to buy mountain dew and doritos while I play WoW.
  • oxymoron69, on 03/31/2008, -4/+14Crazy.... you people can go drop $billions per day/month/x in iraq and wherever else you spread that wacky brand of 'freedom' as you call it.
    But, give some poor folks some damn food, and you're all up in arms about how ***** lazy they are or calling it free handouts.

    Maybe, just maybe, if you say oh, dont build some super crazy highspeed stealth plane for Billyjoebob to fly around and make crazy mother of all bombs to be used against your invisible enemies...
    You could feed all of these poor folks around your country, and it wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket compared to how much the USA spends to rain fire down on those backwards ***** in the desert.
    • Midtowner, on 03/31/2008, -7/+2Works great until one of those "invisible enemies" crashes a jet into the WTC.
  • Lasereth, on 03/31/2008, -3/+6My fiancee is a social worker and she says that 85% of people who apply for medicaid, food stamps, medicare, any financial government assistance are lying. 85%. And a good portion of them get it anyway because of loopholes they jump through. Some of her clients live a higher standard of living than we do (both of us with 4-year degrees) because they get medicine, food, housing, WIC, etc. for free while we pay for all of that. Sure their family income may be $15k total but when you have no bills that's a lot of money.

    The reason these people sit at home and live better than we do? They say why should we get a job and work hard when we get this for free?
    • Derrekito, on 03/31/2008, -2/+5I have lived below the poverty line for most of my life. I have been on Medicade and food stamps. For as long as I live I hope to NEVER have to go through that again. Whenever I would get sick and have to miss school, I would be stuck in a state funded doctor's office and would wait for 8+ hours in the waiting room. ***** that. I'm sorry, but that's *****. Maybe we can through more money at the problem when the end goal is to kill people like me instead of helping them?

      If 85% are really lying, then why isn't people like your wife trying to fix the ***** problem? Many people out there really need the help, and she just allows them to get through? Are there no audits in the system at all? Maybe we should merge her department with the IRS.
      • Lasereth, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3She works for social services, she doesn't make the law. If the laws and regulations say they can lie and get it anyway, they get it anyway.
      • Jashobeam5, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2I've never waited in a state funded doctor's office that long. You need to look for another.
    • ZenMojo, on 03/31/2008, -3/+285% is the number she claims APPLY, but "a good portion" isn't a scientifically quantifiable number of how many RECEIVE. Your fiancee therefore claims that somewhere between 85% and 0.000001% of people who apply for food stamps RECEIVE them FRAUDULENTLY, and until you produce a scientifically quantifiable number, I'm unimpressed.
      • Lasereth, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3I don't have any hard data but it's definitely over 50% get it if they apply. The point is, 85% of the people that apply are LYING and KNOWINGLY try to ripoff the government and taxpayers' money. The simple fact that 85% are trying to get free money without needing it is terrible.
    • cubicledrone, on 03/31/2008, -3/+0Well, maybe they've got a point? Wages suck. Salaries suck. Benefits are gone. It costs half what you make to get back and forth to work. The people who manage the modern workplace are lying gangrene-infected donut-residue-covered hairpiece asscrack *****. The "workplace" is an unwiped ass. The likelihood of a job lasting more than a year is low, if it exists at all.

      So what's your solution? They bust ass at a ***** job like that for a year, get laid off and end up living in a refrigerator box, or take the food stamps? Again, maybe they've got a point.
    • cubicledrone, on 03/31/2008, -1/+0Naturally, my comment applies to people who legally accept food stamp assistance. I don't think people should take any assistance they aren't legally entitled to.
    • tanglewithem, on 04/03/2008, -0/+0It's not a "fact" if you can't provide any data. Obviously you and your fiance are very uninformed, biased people who just believe the b.s. they hear without doing any research. People who apply expect to get help (that's why they go through the horrible application process, interviews, etc.), which is why the "50%" you're claiming get them seems so "high" to you.
  • frenchi, on 03/31/2008, -2/+4Food stamps and welfare exist to help extremely poor people, which should be a small number of people. When you have 10% of the population on food stamps or various welfare programs then you're in trouble. The welfare programs are already struggling to keep up,
  • Griberal, on 03/31/2008, -2/+6So I guess the spin about illegal aliens only take jobs that "Americans won't do" is pure BS. These people that have been laid off and are now on food stamps can do these jobs that we're outsourcing to illegals. If you're hungry and without work, you can't be too picky about the job you take. Unless, of coarse, you have a government that will take money away from the people that are out working hard and give it to the people that are too good to do certain jobs.
    • Midtowner, on 03/31/2008, -4/+2Concur.

      DEY TOOK ARE JAWBS!
    • ZenMojo, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3Illegal aliens don't pay taxes, aren't paid minimum wage, aren't guaranteed health insurance, and can't file civil claims against their employers. There is a specific reason to hire illegal aliens INSTEAD of American citizens...
      • Iconoclast25, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1In some places they make far better than minimum wage, but less than an American would be paid . . . building trades, for example.
    • Iconoclast25, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1How about hiring about 25,000 unemployed AMERICANS to locate, arrest and deport illegals? How about hiring maybe another 1,000 and putting them on the border with night scopes, M14s or M1A1s, dim tracer ammo, and, after publicizing their deployment for a few months, an open season on border jumpers?

      With the illegals removed from our society, there will be plenty of jobs and taxes will plummet because the American worker will not be subsidizing the illegals' use of the "safety net" of free health care, education, etc.
  • mlirblur, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2Food stamps are probably a lot more stable than our dollar. Sad *****.
  • Derrekito, on 03/31/2008, -5/+6Does it seem next to impossible for a level headed argument here? Above is one ad hominem attack after the other. It almost seems that the terms "socialized medicine" and "libs" are simply four letter words to anyone with apposing views to socialized medicine and food stamps. What ever happened to human compassion? Why are we able to throw away so much money toward so many other endeavors, but the last straw seems to stop with our next door neighbor. I do appreciate the alternative view; but can we spend more than 30 seconds writing a comment so not to blatantly act like a bunch of baboons?

    TELL me why socialized medicine is so bad! TELL my why "libs" are so bad! I will tell you the irony in most of the comments I have so far read - by the way most these apposing views are correlate with Republican views. Most Republicans I know are blindly religious; however as soon as the word of their god aught to come into play, they seem to instantly sink to a level of 'assholery' that I am hesitant to call them a remotely intelligent human being.

    Does this forum reflect the state of education in the United States of America, or am I being to harsh?
    • ZenMojo, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3The vast majority of Americans support these social programs. You're dealing with the privileged, naive, and self-importantly righteous Diggertarian.
    • Griberal, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Trust me, I support these social programs every two weeks when I get my paycheck. I just want all of these people that are for socialized medicine and other government social programs to tell me when enough is enough. How much of my money and other taxpayers money do you want to take away from us? Everyone that is supporting Obama and is talking about change, I want them to tell us how much they are willing to pay out of their pocket for this change. Instead of spending everyone else's money, tell us what you will pay. Instead of demonizing the people in this society that work their butts off, people need to start taking responsibility for themselves. While I agree that there are some people that need the assistance (and I don't have a problem with that), there are some that are gaming the system. When you have a government agency that advertises for people to sign up for a social program so that they can justify their budget for the next year, it is not only wrong, but it is stealing from the taxpayers. So instead of asking what is bad about socialized medicine, you should be asking why would anyone want this inept government running their health care system.

      • Derrekito, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Every system is gamed, that doesn't mean that the purpose of said system is nulled. Fix the problem but do not scrap the whole idea.
    • Jashobeam5, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Socialized medicine is bad for obvious reasons. Go to Canada and get cancer and see if you don't die before you get radiation.

      You certainly don't understand taxation and wages if you think taking away one person's income to give to another person who is capable of working is a good system. It's not "having a heart" it's taxation. Do you know how many dollars go toward the programs and never make it to the widows and orphans? Do you know how much money has been spent on poverty in the last 50 years?

      FTR MOST people who give to charity are poor people who cannot claim it on their taxes. Poor people give the most and the largest percentages of their income than rich people. Why? because they are GIVING not being forced to surrender hard earned wages to the goverment. They see where their money is going and how it's being used. I support that over welfare any day.
      • Derrekito, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1In my experience, the poor's donations go to churches. Seems like a waist to me.
    • flip2trip, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1"Most Republicans I know are blindly religious"

      You see it's comments like this one that show your bigotry. When you use the word "blindly" what exactly are you referring to.
  • superduperguy, on 03/31/2008, -4/+1Unfortunately, and sadly, some so-called "compassionate conservatives" regard this food aid program, that's desperately needed by millions of American families & individuals currently at risk for malnutrition, as nothing more than unnecessary "welfare" spending. They'd rather spend hundreds of billions more on unnecessary & unjustified wars and subsequently produce thousands of more disabled and dead veterans.
  • stix213, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Just because more Americans are using food stamps doesn't necessarily mean more are worse off. Back in the day it was embarrassing to use food stamps, where the next person in line at the store would know that you are poor because it was obvious you were using them. So, you would use them when you needed, and when you were doing ok you wanted to avoid the embarrassment and stop using them.

    Today "food stamps" are used just like a credit card. You just swipe your card just like any other shopper, so 99% of the time no one else in line ever notices that you are using food stamps, so now there is little incentive to ever got off the program.
    • omegared, on 03/31/2008, -4/+1Maybe it means that more were worse off in the past but were to embarrassed to use food stamps. I am sure the people using food stamps would rather be supporting themselves and as these comments have shown their is a negative stigma attached to food stamps. It takes courage to use the foods stamps, if a person does use them a they could be labeled as poor or lazy.
      • stix213, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2No it doesn't take any "courage" anymore. You get an EBT credit card that you just use like any other credit card. No one in line even knows you are using food stamps! It looks just like any other credit card other than saying EBT!

        You just stack up your food at the grocery store, whip out the EBT card and pay like anyone else with zero stigma.
  • morningmatters, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1It sucks to be poor in the US. That in itself should be enough incentive for people to try their best. The welfare system should be adjusted so that it would encourage people to get off it and not on it. However, if you take out welfare the poor will just revolt and the crime rate will skyrocket. There is no telling what people will do when they can't meet their basic needs.

    What I find odd are the people who are complaining about those on welfare. They are your average joes with average jobs. Many of them are blue collar and threatened by foreign competition. It's ironic that these people are the ones who will be on welfare sooner or later as long as businesses push for pure profitability.
  • omegared, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1"The true effects of living in poverty have always involved a sort of seclusion from larger society. To be poor in the United States today is to be an outcast of sorts. This is precisely what is poisoning the mind of America’s poor children.
    Instead of working to solve the problem of poverty, however, America seems extraordinarily busy fabricating excuses for the situation. One such excuse comes in the form of statements to the effect that America’s poor aren’t really that poor. One need only take a close look at any major city to see alarming evidence to the contrary.
    Another is that America is a land of opportunity and anyone who has the desire or determination to succeed, will. Unfortunately, the cases of rags to riches are rare and more often people are caught in the trap of their parents’ poverty. According to a recent statistic, American children who are born to parents in the bottom quarter of the income distribution have a 50 percent likelihood of staying there for their entire lives. This percentage rises to 66 percent if they are black."
    http://www.naturalnews.com/022906.html
    • Jashobeam5, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I cannot blame poor children's world view on the government. If parents are teaching their children that there is no hope, guess what. The kids won't try for more. I've seen it a LOT in life. The parents take no interest in the children's education, don't teach them the basics of how to get and keep a job, how to manage money, etc. More money is not going to change that attitude.

      Rags to riches are not rare in the US. My grandparents were dirt poor (no electricity, outhouse instead of indoor plumbing, etc.). My parents didn't graduate from high school. How did we end up? Two of us with college educations, and another with his own business. What did my father tell each of us? "You are smart." Even when I was nearly failing in school, my Dad said, "I know you are smart." My relative raised 5 kids. She never told them they were smart. She never told them how to get a job, how to be responsible citizens. Her kids almost all ended up on welfare. It's not the government's fault when we don't believe in our kids and prepare them for the future. I might have been born into a welfare home, but my parents knew I could do better if given half the chance and the encouragment to do so even if they had to drive me to job interviews and lecture me on being on time for work.
  • punchinelli, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Some people need to get off the couch and get a job! Give an inch, they take a mile. When they decided to hang with the thugs because it was cooler than doing your homework, they ultimately decided to sit on the couch as an adult and reap the Food Stamps that I work hard for. We need to nip this in the bud and legalize crime! Let those criminals make MONEY off their wrongdoings! Then we'll all win.
  • sportscrzy33, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1This country is steadly going in the toliet!
  • caponumen, on 04/01/2008, -1/+1So how are the poor going to pay for health insurance when they can't afford food?
    The depths of depravity HRC represents is amazing when you consider the net effect of "her" plan will be a 15-20% increase in health insurance profits.
  • LoneRanger85, on 04/04/2008, -2/+3Woo Hoo! This is what Democrats want, isn't it? I mean, if nobody is dependent on the government, how do they justify higher taxes? For that matter, how do they justify the existence of the Democrat Party? Now then, lemme tell you about the "poor" in the United States.

    The poor in America live, in many ways, better than the middle classes in other developed countries. The average American poor family has a color TV set (97%) with cable or satellite reception (62%), owns a car (73%), and lives in air conditioning (76%). Forty-six percent of poor families own their own homes. Poverty in America has decreased from 22% of the population in 1960 to 12.5% today. The poverty rate would be much lower if the US did not accept more immigrants than all other nations combined.

    Most important is the fact that the poor in America do not, in general, remain poor for very long. This is the conclusion of a University of Michigan socioeconomic study that has been tracking over 50,000 Americans since 1968. In Myths of the Rich and Poor, Michael Cox and Richard Alm showed that only 5% of families in the bottom fifth of the income distribution in 1975 were still there in 1991. More than 75% of the families in that lowest quintile in 1975 had made their way up to the two highest quintiles by 1991. Over half of the lowest quintile moved to a higher quintile in only four years. This degree of upward mobility is truly remarkable and not experienced anywhere else in the world.

    Yet another phony Democrat issue. What's bad for the country is good for Democrats.
  • LoneRanger85, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2Another thread killed by the insertion of FACTS.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.