Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Fair enough...

Hope you are feeling well today...

Kind of cloudy over here

rumitoid

No problem, thought something was missing.

rumitoid

Feeling okay, and you. Pretty nice weather here for the last day of winter. Have a great spring.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

I'm decent...

Preparing for the gym...

Everything takes three times longer when one has a rugrat underfoot... She has taken to hiding my keys

You have a great spring too... And get some walking in

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Numbers do not lie. People can have opinions that may not be true. Most of your other issues rely on opinions....

1. ‘Illegal immigrants take advantage of the system.’ OPINION. Some people believe this, it is their opinion and is indefensible.

2. ‘People on welfare don’t work.’ This is either, a true defensible position due to the matrix of those on assistance ("two-thirds of participants are children, elderly, and people with disabilities, who are not expected to work") making only a small percentage on assistance who do have jobs; although those jobs may be intermittent or of low reported pay. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/most-working-age-snap-participants-work-but-often-in-unstable-jobs A case can be made that due to the way the statement is presented, it is false.

3. ‘Minorities dominate the welfare rolls.’ Already addressed

4. ‘They’re buying steak and lobster.’ SNAP website lists: Foods for the household to eat, such as: breads and cereals; fruits and vegetables; meats, fish and poultry; and
dairy products.Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat. Nothing prevents people from spending their SNAP on lobster or steak. So, this is again indefensible, because it is dependent on the receipitant on how they manage their food budget. Not policed by the government..... however, there are items that one can not purchase on SNAP: Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Any nonfood items, such as:
pet foods;
soaps, paper products;
household supplies; and
Vitamins and medicines
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items


5. ‘You can live big on welfare.’ An opinion not worth the effort to research

6. ‘Once people get on welfare, they stay on it for life.’ Already addressed

7. ‘Welfare people just do drugs and cash checks.’ An opinion

8. ‘These welfare queens drive Cadillacs.’ This is possible in most states. "States have great flexibility to set the food stamp vehicle asset policies to ensure that needy households can get the help they need and still have reliable transportation. Forty six states have used this flexibility to exempt at least one vehicle from consideration in determining food stamp eligibility. However, nine states still limit the value of the cars participants may own. This paper provides information about each state’s policy and which option the state utilized to set its vehicle policy." https://www.cbpp.org/research/states-vehicle-asset-policies-in-the-food-stamp-program

9. ‘Blue states are great for welfare queens.’ I do not have the information to comment on this. There are states, due to cost of living that provide more money for assistance, but I am not qualified to make a determination..

Any other issues in your post that you believe I ignored?

rumitoid

My point was, in case you did not notice, that those lies, as you make plain, are mostly not worth commenting on or researching because they are so absurd. Just opinions, as you noted, on the Right to incite their base. But that is what you will get from most of the GOP.

rumitoid

On the lie ‘Blue states are great for welfare queens,’ here is the list of those states with the most recipients:

15. Illinois
14. Kentucky
13. Nevada
12. Florida
11. Oklahoma
10. Delaware (who'd a thunk it?)
9. Tennessee
8. Georgia
7. Alabama
6. Mississippi
5. Oregon
4. D.C.
3. West Virginia
2. Louisiana
1. New Mexico
https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-people-food-stamps.html/

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I ask that you reconsider your view. An opinion may be based on facts as the person knows them..... and many of the "lies" are not necessarily lies, states and the federal officials do not regulate everything. Good examples the food bought or the cars driven. There are also loopholes that some people take advantage.... no lifetime ineligibility for those who have been on the program for maximum time limits. Illegals, even if they are not personally receiving aid still benefit from aid given to household members; who keeps track of what they eat in a community or household refrigerator? Who tracks if they have electricity in the rooms paid for by the government, or the car bought under government assistance? What I consider "living big" is not necessarily what you would consider "living big." If I flew to Hawaii every Christmas, I would say that is living big.... but, as you know there are government officials who have come to expect the taxpayer to foot the bill. For some, living big means that once a month they can go to a good restaurant or own a home at the lake. So, it is a matter of perspectives. And finally, Huff Post clearly state that their piece came from "Arloc Sherman, a researcher with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C., that advocates for antipoverty programs, said the data outlines two broad categories of people who use public benefits." Hardly unbiased.

rumitoid

The biggest and most expensive Safety Net we have are for subsidies to certain Industries. What are they eating? What about their corporate jets? Do they stay at Motel Six when they travel? Question their expense accounts for whatever? Make them do drug tests to qualify? Send reps to inspect their living conditions?

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

The point I responded to was: "Blue States are great for welfare queens."
Not which states (blue or red) have the most people on welfare. Here are the top for maximum spending on welfare:
1. New York

Welfare spending per capita: $3,305

Total public welfare expenditures: $19.85 billion

Fact: New York has the fifth-highest cost of living in the country.

2. Alaska

Welfare spending per capita: $3,020

Total public welfare expenditures: $2.23 billion

Fact: Alaska is one of the least populous states, and its total public welfare spending is actually the sixth-lowest of all the states – even though its spending per capita is ranked No. 2.

3. Massachusetts

Welfare spending per capita: $2,911

Total public welfare expenditures: $19.97 billion

Fact: The percentage of Massachusetts households that lived in poverty during 2016-17 is 10.1 percent. Massachusetts is also the fourth-most expensive state to live in.

4. Vermont

Welfare spending per capita: $2,842

Total public welfare expenditures: $1.77 billion

Fact: Although Vermont’s welfare spending per capita is high, its total welfare spending is the fifth-lowest of all the states, which is likely due to its low population.

5. Minnesota

Welfare spending per capita: $2,805

Total public welfare expenditures: $15.64 billion

Fact: Minnesota is among the top five states that spend the most on welfare per capita, and it’s among the top 15 with the highest total public welfare expenditures.

6. New Mexico

Welfare spending per capita: $2,741

Total public welfare expenditures: $5.72 billion

Fact: New Mexico has the third-highest poverty rate in America at 18.2 percent.

7. Delaware

Welfare spending per capita: $2,544

Total public welfare expenditures: $2.45 billion

Fact: Per capita spending in Delaware is among the highest, but the state’s total welfare expenditures are the seventh-lowest of all the states. This is likely because it’s the sixth-least populous state.

8. Maine

Welfare spending per capita: $2,530

Total public welfare expenditures: $3.38 billion

Fact: Maine is one of the states that spends the most on welfare per capita. However, it’s among the top 15 states with the lowest total public welfare expenditures.

9. Oregon

Welfare spending per capita: $2,520

Total public welfare expenditures: $10.44 billion

Fact: Although Oregon spends a lot on welfare compared to other states, it’s not one of the best states for poor Americans, a separate GOBankingRates study found. This is due to an overall high cost of living, high crime rates and a lack of affordable housing.

10. Kentucky

Welfare spending per capita: $2,517

Total public welfare expenditures: $11.21 billion

Fact: The poverty rate in Kentucky is 14.8 percent – tied for the seventh-highest of all the states – which could account for its high welfare spending per capita.

And figure this one out.... "34% Of the nation’s welfare recipients live in California but only 12% of the U.S. citizens resides here." https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-welfare-capital-of-the-us-2012jul28-htmlstory.html Good article....

A new report by Cato Institute, which examines the state-by-state value of welfare for a mother of two, said benefits in Hawaii average $49,175 — tops in the nation.

Are these examples red or blue.... I have no idea or do I care. Fact is, there are states that are very generous to those receiving benefits.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Industries do not eat, sleep, have sexual needs nor do they fly in airplanes. I do not know any of my colleagues, that do have these needs, who are CO or CEO who are on welfare. In fact, my associates work hard for their income and provide the vast majority of jobs, tax revenue, and products sold in and outside of the USA.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

rumitoid

Too funny. Your point is ridiculous. Their expenses, how they use those vast subsidies, is the same that the GOP demands of those on Welfare.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

If my point is ridiculous.... consider that you think a company can eat, sleep, or go to the bathroom. A company is not a human, animal, fish or a plant.... it has human needs or requirements....

But, regardless of that. Let us talk about government subsidies (although has nothing to do with your initial thread). And tell me, which ones would you eliminate.

Farm Subsidies....America's food supply must be protected from droughts, tornadoes, and recessions. In fact, agricultural subsidies were originally created to help farmers ravaged by the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression of 1929. This price support system lasted until the 1990s. The federal government guaranteed farmers a high enough price to remain profitable. Most subsidies go to farmers of grains, such as corn, wheat, and rice. It is because grains provide 80 percent of the world's caloric needs.

Oil Subsidies..... ended by obama.

Ethanol Subsidies.... ended by obama

Export Subsidies, WTO bans export subsidies. But it allows two U.S. federal government export subsidy programs. They help U.S. farmers compete with other countries' subsidized exports. The U.S. Department of Agriculture promotes:

The Export Credit Guarantee Program, which finances U.S. farm exports. The USDA guarantees the buyers' credit when they can't get credit approval locally.
The Dairy Export Incentive Program, which pays cash subsidies to dairy exporters. It helps them meet the subsidized prices of foreign dairy producers.

There are/were others like obama's cash for clunkers, obamacare, and housing subsidies.
And then you may not be talking about subsidies but rather tax insensitivities provided by states to encourage companies from moving to more tax friendly countries or states. If that is the case.... consider how much these companies give back to the community and how many people they employ.

PeterS

During the 80's I owned a property management company and dealt with thousands of section 8 apartments each month. From my experience, some people gamed the system but the vast majority were there because they truly needed the help. And it is possible to have nice things and still need and qualify for assistance. I'm not sure how you are connecting nice furniture and a car to taking advantage of the system--especially when you consider that if an apartment, including the furniture, isn't kept up that that is a qualification to be kicked off of the section 8 program. As for the car, if you don't have a reliable car how can you get back and forth to a job and get off the system?

PeterS

You can be so naive Pennylynn. A vile of insulin costs $350 instead of $26 not because demand has driven the price that high but because of millions in payoffs to the government so there would be no legislation to prevent it, or no will to enforce what legislation there might be. You cons like to believe that we have an economic system based on capitalism when instead we have a system based on corporatism where millions used to buy off our politicians is returned by the trillions in favors of either lower taxes or no regulation to prevent them from shafting the public.

Now I am sure you cons don't see that as a form of welfare but I see it as the worst form of welfare possible and what is really galling about it is that it is done with the blessing of you cons under the assumption it is all part of the Capitalist system or--your ole standby--you blame the price hikes on Democrats fumbling of the economy...