USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
What State and Zip code did you use??
Liberals to Call on Tea Party to Denounce Ties to Sarah Palin!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
What State and Zip code did you use??
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You've provided nothing to show that the numbers you've used are at the maximum amount to be used, in figuring the assistance.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
I have provided no hard numbers at all. I just made an observation based on my own experiences and several studies.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
In that you are correct; because you havn't presented any "hard numbers" to support your assertion, or anything that would show your "observations" have any substance.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Except that my observations have been used for quite some time as evidence that the system is flawed.
Except for the fact that the link Good Luck gave shows the same thing. Except for the article that CAW read said the same thing.
Good Luck
New member
Montana - it's where I live. Didn't enter a zip code, just state.
For additional info:
at 1400 income the fictional family gets $365-375.
1500 = 341-351
1600 = 317-327
1700 = 287-297
1800 = 251-261
In short, as income goes up, benefits drop. Add in other assistance programs such as rental assistance, child care assistance, etc, and the assistance drops soon outweigh the additional income even if they are not cut off entirely.
Also, do you think $2000/mo for a family of 3 will yield a decent standard of living? Yet for many programs this is about where all benefits get cut off entirely. In short, a person could make $1900 and receive upwards of $500 in total benefits for a total income, earned and unearned, of $2400. They get a 5% raise, and their total income drops to $2000.
And if you think it is accidental these systems end up punishing people who try to make better for themselves, you are truly delusional.
For additional info:
at 1400 income the fictional family gets $365-375.
1500 = 341-351
1600 = 317-327
1700 = 287-297
1800 = 251-261
In short, as income goes up, benefits drop. Add in other assistance programs such as rental assistance, child care assistance, etc, and the assistance drops soon outweigh the additional income even if they are not cut off entirely.
Also, do you think $2000/mo for a family of 3 will yield a decent standard of living? Yet for many programs this is about where all benefits get cut off entirely. In short, a person could make $1900 and receive upwards of $500 in total benefits for a total income, earned and unearned, of $2400. They get a 5% raise, and their total income drops to $2000.
And if you think it is accidental these systems end up punishing people who try to make better for themselves, you are truly delusional.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Except / Except / Except
Except that you haven't shown that your assertions have any truth to them.
Thinking Caps on America
In order to vote in America, you must now pass the new political intelligence test.
Do you think the sun rotates around the earth?
Do you think Sarah Palin is presidential material?
Do you think Michelle Bachmann's arguments make sense?
Do you think Glenn Beck's presentation of history is reasonable?
Do you think Rand Paul's ideas are practical workable politics?
Do you think Rush Limbaugh works for and speaks for the little people?
Do you think Barack Obama is a Marxist?
Do you think the earth is flat?
If you answered 'yes' to any of the above questions, you are truly unqualified to vote for anything let alone our president or our congress. Get a brain and come back to us when you found it.
"Citizens United for a more Intelligent voter"
In order to vote in America, you must now pass the new political intelligence test.
Do you think the sun rotates around the earth?
Do you think Sarah Palin is presidential material?
Do you think Michelle Bachmann's arguments make sense?
Do you think Glenn Beck's presentation of history is reasonable?
Do you think Rand Paul's ideas are practical workable politics?
Do you think Rush Limbaugh works for and speaks for the little people?
Do you think Barack Obama is a Marxist?
Do you think the earth is flat?
If you answered 'yes' to any of the above questions, you are truly unqualified to vote for anything let alone our president or our congress. Get a brain and come back to us when you found it.
"Citizens United for a more Intelligent voter"
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You must have done more then that; because if you don't know your zip code and you click on the provided link, it asks for a specific address.
Therefore, if may just be possible that being under a specific zip code might just mean different help.
Regarding the rest of your post, it's becoming a little obvious that you might just believe that a "handout" is supposed to continue forever.
Last edited:
Good Luck
New member
Your reaching for air, buddy. SNAP is a federal program, they aren't going to change the rules significantly between zip codes. In fact that is one of the problems with assistance programs comeing from the federal government - they almost invariably take a one-size-fits-all approach.
And if they are asking you for a zip code, you are going someplace I did not go. I went to http://www.snap-step1.usda.gov/fns/index.jsp clicked on "start tool", and entered "Montana" for "state or territory"; entered "other" for "who is using this tool"; and "searching the internet" for "how did you hear about this tool?"
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It sounds very similar to the voting system Saddam Hussein had for Iraq.
Good Luck
New member
And by this statement it is becoming obvious you are in the mood to mindlessly troll rather than discuss the topic.
What is the matter with continuing to diminish benefits gradually instead of reaching a cut-it-off point? What is the matter with the idea of coordinating assistance programs so they don't end up combining to punish extra earned income?
Bottom line: federal assistance programs, as well as many state assistance programs, are literally designed to be traps. Get the people dependent on government, then the party that designed the traps can use the "don't vote Republican because they want to take all your benefits away" balderdash to guarantee themselves a voting block of political slaves.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Here's where I went:
http://www.snap-step1.usda.gov/fns/index.jsp
and Arizona has a different set up, as do some other States.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I agree that they are "traps", in the sense that they are geared to keep those with no desire to succeed on the dole; but I disagree with the assertion that there is no way off, or that it's designed to so that someone can't get off.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
USFaggot is just being his usual obtuse self. Pay no attention to the droning. In my younger days, I worked with the poor and indigent, managed a food closet, and volunteered at a homeless shelter. I have done my homework, as well as personal case study work, and I know what the fuck I am talking about. What you and GL said is spot on. People who receive government assistance, whether it is welfare, AFDC, WIC, food stamps, or even unemployment and SSI, are ALL restricted from earning extra income. Any extra income they earn and report, is either deducted from their assistance directly, or disqualifies them altogether.
Now, we may differ greatly on what we think should be a solution to this problem, but to bow up and argue this isn't a problem that exists, is just plain foolish. It does exist, and it is a problem that has plagued the system all along, and has kept generations of poor people trapped in poverty.
I don't think there should be ANY free government assistance, with the exception of assisting the handicapped or disabled veterans. All other poor people should have to do something to EARN assistance. Whether it's working part time at a homeless shelter or community center, or assisting other poor people by providing day care services or delivering meals to shut-ins, they should be required to DO SOMETHING to EARN the assistance. Perhaps even have a system that rewards their efforts accordingly, allowing a really productive person to 'dig their way out' of poverty. There should be some pathway from government dependency to self-sufficiency, and that should be encouraged, not forbidden.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
You're the last person on this board who should be dropping words like "thinking" and "intelligence."
Good Luck
New member
There is, obviously, a way out - I already mentioned it: the willingness to do with less as one progresses on one's own. That does not mean the system is not purposely designed to make it as difficult as possible to get out. The fact (as we have amply demonstrated) that combined assistance diminishes more rapidly than income rises is NOT some unanticipated error in the design of how federal assistance (and some state assistance) is designed. There is a reason for how they put it all together, and that reason is not for the benefit of the people.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Showing one example, from one State, is not an example of "amply demonstrated" what you're promoting.
If by doing "with less" means not buying new Televisions, cars. designer clothes, and expensive cuts of meat, then yes it is a willingness; but that's what anyone does, who wants to "get ahead", and does not solely belong to those on welfare.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Let me share a real-life story... I spent nearly a year, trying to help someone who was on government assistance. She had 3 children, a single mom, without a high school education. I first encouraged her to get her GED, through a program in Georgia (Peach Program) and she did that. Once she had done this, we began working on her problems one by one. The first and most pressing problem was the burden of these 3 kids... She was getting AFDC, but it was not a lot of money, and certainly not what it takes to sufficiently care for 3 kids. So I spent months tracking down the deadbeat dads, found two of them were actually serving in the military! I went through the military channels to secure child support from them, the military will deduct this right out of their pay and send it to her, so there's one problem solved, right? Well, as it turns out, the amount of child support she received, disqualified her for ANY public assistance. Then I found her a job, it didn't pay all that great, but along with the child support, she was much better off than before. Again, problem solved, right? Wrong! Six months later, I contacted her to see how things were going. She had quit the job because she couldn't afford to pay the child care. I asked how she was getting by, and she informed me she was now drawing disability. Now, she isn't really disabled, there is nothing really wrong with her that would prohibit her from working, but she managed to get some doctor to proclaim her disabled, and she was getting a check each month from the government. Along with the child support, she was doing just fine.
Good Luck
New member
I gave you a link to a .gov estimating tool, along with some figures I derived from using it. I provided the link to the tool instead of just the results so you can demonstrate to yourself how these programs work. You can enter any state, any region, any family size, any income. If it is beyond your capacity to use it properly, that is not my fault.
As for how people use the system in a manner to provide themselves with a standard of living which is often above that of people working for their living, that, too, is one of my major gripes with the way we approach helping the "poor". Most people don't know what poor really is.
And, no, making do with less is not in all cases limited to not having cable TV and the like. Though, even when it does, it just adds to the argument that assistance programs are designed to trap the people into government dependence. People like their little luxuries, and if not working that extra shift a month at Walmart means you can afford those premium cable channels, while working more means getting rid of cable all together, guess which most will choose. AND THAT IS THE SYSTEM'S INTENT!!! Because those self same people depending on that extra government dole for their little luxuries are certainly not going to vote for a political philosophy that does not believe those kinds of things should be supported. In fact, it is not accident that the same political philosophy that designed the assistance system also heavily promotes the idea that people are entitled to things like "economic equality".
Last edited: