PA Welfare recipients get Free Cell Phones

[ly2 from WF]

I like how stealing peoples money is referred to as "revenue" now.

Hi, give me your fucking wallet or I am going to blow your head off. I need some fucking revenue.

PERHAPS...just maybe, we could just STOP SPENDING FUCKING MONEY.

Also, skyline you're a fucking faggot.

k thnx

EDIT: SkyFire you're also a faggot.

 

[Napolean]

Do you just make this shit up? Please, show me where welfare recipients are receiving more than the median income.

Public housing, welfare checks, food stamps. Combine these with a part time job and you are doing quite well. Even without the part time job, you don't have much to complain about.

Now you get a cell phone. Oh, and chances are, your health care is paid for too.

So public housing, significant discount on rent. Even cut in half that's saving an easy $250 to $500 per month, or + $ 6,000.00 per year.

Welfare checks, not sure how much this pays. I'll just assume its similar to what some people get for social security benefits, I'll low ball it and say $600.00/month. + $ 7,200.00/year.

Food stamps, again no idea, I'm assuming something like $100 a week? +$ 5,200.00/year.

Medicaid, really depends on the state. In New York, a couple wanting just basic health insurance who doesn't get it from an employer or the state, is going to have to pony up $2,000+/month. It's drastically lower in other states, down to $200.00/month. We'll be fair and value it at that. $200/month. + $ 2,400.00/year.

So we're up to $ 20,800.00/year. Close to or even below what we pay some of our soldiers [ref].

If your working a part time job or under the table, you're doing even better.

Now, you get a free cell phone on top of that.

I'm estimating and guessing of course, I didn't look up the actual benefits. I could easily be over or under estimating. I don't think I'm too far off though.

Now lets compare that to a small business owner making $ 49,501.00 per year.

We'll say our business owner is married and files jointly. He's in the 25% bracket and pays $ 15,000.00 to federal, and $ 1,350.00 (based on PA) to state. Leaves him with $ 49,650.00.

He also has to pay for his full rent, - $6000.00.
Pays for his own food. - $ 5,200.00.
Pays for his own health insurance. - $ 3000.00.

So he's left with $ 18,951.00 after everything is equaled out. This of course doesn't count the cost of commuting and other expenses that come with maintaining a job or business, that don't fall into the category of business expenses.

Edit: Almost forgot. Cell phone. - $ 1,440.00. So.. $ 17,511.00 for the average guy.

 

[papajohn56]

"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

Yeah...except the actual press release said:

"Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing."

S&P Downgrades U.S. Debt Rating — Press Release - MarketBeat - WSJ

 

[Moxie]

Welfare checks, not sure how much this pays. I'll just assume its similar to what some people get for social security benefits, I'll low ball it and say $600.00/month. + $ 7,200.00/year.

Food stamps, again no idea, I'm assuming something like $100 a week? +$ 5,200.00/year.

Haha, you are high balling it. Food stamps is closer to $133 a month and welfare was $372 a month in 2006.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Numbers On Welfare See Sharp Increase - WSJ.com


A person can get a total of 60 months max of welfare in their lifetime. Healthy people on food stamps are at least suppose to start doing community service after three months, but there are waivers and exceptions to this.

These limits were signed into law by Bill Clinton. If Reagan had done this, republicans would constantly mention and praise him for it, while democrats would criticize him for it. It doesn't fit into their left/right politics though, so both sides tend to ignore it instead.

 

[Rexibit]

"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

They also said, "S&P has said that a larger level of savings is needed -- at least $4 trillion either through spending reductions or tax increases - are needed in order to start lowering U.S. deficits in coming years."

The Republicans suggested nearly a $4 trillion tax cutting bill, something the Democrats didn't want to support because they'd rather have more money coming in to waste instead of dealing with the problem and live within their means. So, even if the Republicans worked with the Democrats on "their" bill, the credit rating reduction would have happened.

S&P stated that this was going to occur even if the debt ceiling limit was raised. The point is, the Government, like you, are retarded and don't see the big picture. It will currently take 69,523.81 years to pay the debt off if the US government is going to be paying it back at $575,342.47 per day ($ 2.1 trillion over 10 years). That's not including the current 2+ trillion every year they've been adding to the debt.

Taxing more is not the way to go about reducing debt when you have a spending problem. You don't say, "Hey, I need to make more money." when you realize you can't buy what you want. It's harder to increase your income than it is to say, "Hell, this shit isn't working and I don't use this, I'll cut it from my budget and buy this with the savings."

The Government is a business, it's time it starts being ran like one.

 

[omgyams]

Goddam I know a handful of undeserving parasites who will take full advantage of this. I'm all for well thought out social programs, but this and many of the programs we have aren't in the ballpark.

PA's welfare practices are fucking retarded. When I was a kid, Allentown was the only place you could move and start collecting welfare right away, without being a citizen for a certain amount of time. City turned from a nice place into a shithole in less than ten years.

Sup PA buddy. Born and raised there myself.

 

[Napolean]

Haha, you are high balling it. Food stamps is closer to $133 a month and welfare was $372 a month in 2006.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Numbers On Welfare See Sharp Increase - WSJ.com


A person can get a total of 60 months max of welfare in their lifetime. Healthy people on food stamps are at least suppose to start doing community service after three months, but there are waivers and exceptions to this.

These limits were signed into law by Bill Clinton. If Reagan had done this, republicans would constantly mention and praise him for it, while democrats would criticize him for it. It doesn't fit into their left/right politics though, so both sides tend to ignore it instead.

I was way off then. :error:

Someone genuinely dependent on those programs wouldn't enjoy even a moderate standard of living. Anyone else collecting those benefits who doesn't need it (someone with a part time job), still gets off easier than the median income earner who may still be living week to week.

I was reading a thread on another forum (that calls itself a Libertarian forum, but based on the members, must be a joke), discussing the ethics of accepting WIC or any other government assistance. The general consensus was "its your tax dollars, may as well get back what you can!", they completely neglect the fact that by *abusing* those services, they perpetuate the problem. (Since one person mentioned putting the money they didn't have to spend into their savings account, I would consider that abuse. The core principle behind these programs are to help people who cannot help themselves, not to help grow your nest egg on the backs of other tax payers.)

 

[Rexibit]

I was way off then. :error:

Someone genuinely dependent on those programs wouldn't enjoy even a moderate standard of living. Anyone else collecting those benefits who doesn't need it (someone with a part time job), still gets off easier than the median income earner who may still be living week to week.

I was reading a thread on another forum (that calls itself a Libertarian forum, but based on the members, must be a joke), discussing the ethics of accepting WIC or any other government assistance. The general consensus was "its your tax dollars, may as well get back what you can!", they completely neglect the fact that by *abusing* those services, they perpetuate the problem. (Since one person mentioned putting the money they didn't have to spend into their savings account, I would consider that abuse. The core principle behind these programs are to help people who cannot help themselves, not to help grow your nest egg on the backs of other tax payers.)

This is one more reason that all welfare-type services need to be managed at the community level, not the Federal or State level. Historically, a community is what takes care of those in it and can manage the money the most effectively since they "know" who is needy and will see that they are taken care of because those people are their friends, relatives, etc.

When you add bureaucracy (aside from managing funds) and distance from the equation, you get people abusing the system.

Honestly, the only thing the Federal Government needs to control in regards to supporting the community are infrastructure-type projects and protection (and maybe some regulations). Everything else needs to be scrapped and allowed to be ran at the State or community level. Only then will efficient distribution of social services be carried out and managed like they should be.

 

[TeeBird]

Here is the United States debt problem explained in simple terms by Dave Ramsey:

‎"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year.

Folks, we have a spending problem.

 

[1yerrot]

At least it's a service for the people, unlike the oversea wars, the TSA or other government bullshit.

Much agreed sir...

 

[Napolean]

Honestly, the only thing the Federal Government needs to control in regards to supporting the community are infrastructure-type projects and protection (and maybe some regulations). Everything else needs to be scrapped and allowed to be ran at the State or community level. Only then will efficient distribution of social services be carried out and managed like they should be.

What I find interesting needing government for infrastructure, is we have never really had an opportunity to see how privatizing infrastructure could benefit us.

The postal service was a part of our infrastructure and before FedEx, could have easily been an argument on why we need the federal government, just like we argue today that we need it to maintain roads. Nobody thought that FedEx could be a success, but they do the job better than the government could and profit while doing so.

 

[Rexibit]

What I find interesting needing government for infrastructure, is we have never really had an opportunity to see how privatizing infrastructure could benefit us.

The postal service was a part of our infrastructure and before FedEx, could have easily been an argument on why we need the federal government, just like we argue today that we need it to maintain roads. Nobody thought that FedEx could be a success, but they do the job better than the government could and profit while doing so.

I see your point, but we have the issue of having to "pay" to use said roads. You could argue that "toll booths" are common in larger cities, but if every road is privatized, then your costs increase dramatically.

That's where the only benefit I see in taxes are because you get use of the whole system for much cheaper than you could otherwise. That's what taxes were originally for, not to line the pockets of politicians and those that bribe them to toss money their way. When you go back to the original use of taxes, the whole system could be ran on a fraction of what we are paying now.

 

[potentialeight]

The core principle behind these programs are to help people who cannot help themselves, not to help grow your nest egg on the backs of other tax payers.

+1

I can definitely understand the viewpoint of people who don't want to be forced into giving some arbitrary percentage of their income for the supposed purpose of helping others, especially when the funds aren't managed all that well. It's interesting to think about what would happen if all of those programs were instantly cut for everyone who doesn't absolutely need them. Would people adapt and figure out a way to make it work, or would they riot?

The biggest problem I have with the way things currently are is that we're forced to throw money into this system that's proven to be broken. We end up with lots of people who are given a ton and really don't need it, but then plenty of people who legitimately cannot work or support themselves get caught up in red tape. When there are changes to the system, it's often in the form of adding more programs that are easily abused, instead of working on the quality and efficiency of the programs already available (ie: doing more or the same with less money).

 

[JakeStratham]

What I find interesting needing government for infrastructure, is we have never really had an opportunity to see how privatizing infrastructure could benefit us.

The postal service was a part of our infrastructure and before FedEx, could have easily been an argument on why we need the federal government, just like we argue today that we need it to maintain roads. Nobody thought that FedEx could be a success, but they do the job better than the government could and profit while doing so.

Correct. Those who believe the state is needed for infrastructure should at least give Dr. Walter Block's body of work a glance. Here are a few resources:

The Road to Freedom: An Interview with Walter Block - Walter Block - Mises Daily

A Future of Private Roads and Highways - Walter Block - Mises Daily

The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors (Buy, Free PDF)

 

[nism1]

it is real?

 

[theunicorn]

having no phone = no hope of getting a job and getting off welfare.

 

[1yerrot]

having no phone = no hope of getting a job and getting off welfare.

I wouldn't say it's written in stone, but it's most definitely a strong inhibitant to being able to secure a job outside of a couple miles radius of your home, especially a decent one. I mean, unless they have skype or something, but if you can't afford a phone you probably don't have a computer either.

 

[science]

cell phones cost a few bucks to manufacture

 

[theunicorn]

I wouldn't say it's written in stone, but it's most definitely a strong inhibitant to being able to secure a job outside of a couple miles radius of your home, especially a decent one. I mean, unless they have skype or something, but if you can't afford a phone you probably don't have a computer either.

yeah doubt too many people on welfare are skyping. and despite the welfare queen claims, most people on welfare have fuck all. like all they have is a tv with the tube smashed in.

 

[miketpowell]

Yeah...except the actual press release said:

"Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing."

S&P Downgrades U.S. Debt Rating — Press Release - MarketBeat - WSJ

No that's just what WSJ printed - it's right there in page 4 of the actual report S&P released. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/af2c4fac-bfc2-11e0-90d5-00144feabdc0.pdf

"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now
assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

So they aren't taking a position I guess. But they are saying one of the things they changed in the projection was if the Bush tax cuts would still be around and that change along with others made the outlook bad enough to reduce the rating.


The more important thing though is why the fuck is the S&P still around? Why would people want to pay money to these people still and care about what they say after such a hard fail in the past.