|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,230
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,230 |
Good thing we spent that trillion plus on a stimulus package. What did it stimulate? Who laughed when it was said that "hope and change" meant a dependant populace? Perhaps 4 years of a liberal majority in congress played a role here. Bloomberg Food Stamp Recipients at Record 41.8 Million Americans in July, U.S. Says By Alan Bjerga - Oct 5, 2010 4:46 PM ET The number of Americans receiving food stamps rose to a record 41.8 million in July as the jobless rate hovered near a 27-year high, the government said. Recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program subsidies for food purchases jumped 18 percent from a year earlier and increased 1.4 percent from June, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said today in a statement on its website. Participation has set records for 20 straight months. Unemployment in September may have reached 9.7 percent, according to a Bloomberg News survey of analysts in advance of the release of last month’s rate on Oct. 8. Unemployment was 9.6 percent in July, near levels last seen in 1983. An average of 43.3 million people, more than an eighth of the population, will get food stamps each month in the year that began Oct. 1, according to White House estimates.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
jfa.. I will just post this as some people are bound to come here and tout how necessary all of these food stamps are for those people crushed by the Bush recession..  So not to worry, this will make you feel better...  Wait, it's not funny...  Report: Welfare aid cards for the needy used on cruise ships By Gene Sloan, USA TODAY The Los Angeles Times is reporting that California welfare money meant to help the needy pay for food, clothes and other essentials has been withdrawn on at least 14 cruise ships sailing out of Miami and other ports. The news outlet says an investigation of state records found $16,010 of California welfare money was taken out on cruise ships between January 2007 and May 2010 -- in some cases on vessels sailing to such faraway and pricey destinations as Rio de Janeiro. Results of the investigation, published Monday in the Times' print edition, found California welfare money also had been withdrawn along the Las Vegas Strip, at Florida's Walt Disney World and at other vacation resort areas from Hawaii to the U.S. Virgin Islands. California issues welfare recipients money on aid cards that are similar to bank debit cards and can be used in many ATM machines, but the money is not meant to be used for vacations. The Times says California welfare recipients must prove they can't afford life's necessities without government aid. A single parent with two children generally must earn less than $14,436 a year to qualify for the cash assistance and becomes ineligible once his or her income exceeds about $20,000, the news outlet says. The Times' findings have sparked outrage in the state, and soon after it appeared in the paper on Monday the administration of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered a block on the welfare cards' use on cruise ships and in casinos. "California taxpayers, who are struggling to keep their own jobs, are subsidizing other people's vacations. That's absurd," the Times quotes the head of a state taxpayer group as saying. Cruise Loggers, share your thoughts below. Posted Oct 6 2010 10:43AM web page I guess it's not a WHOLE lot of money but people wonder why some of us have such a hard time with our welfare system... 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797 |
So we have 307 million people in this country ...... and almost 42 million are on food stamps.
I wonder if that counts dependent children as well ..... or if that's just the number of people who are head of households, etc.?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
This chick I know used to try to sell her food stamps for money to buy heroin........
she had three kids.....but momma needed to get off sick before she fed the kiddies.
Thems some messed up priorities.
Her grandma is caring for the kids now.....momma is still living the life---heard she is turning tricks now.
What a great story.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Working in retail.. I have seen... A young lady dressed sharply about to head out for a night on the town using a EBT card.. Another young lady pulled a EBT card out of a Juicy wallet that she pulled out of a Juicy Purse.
Cannot beat the time when I worked in a grocery store year and years ago.. Lady paid in foodstamps and put the groceries into a Cadiliac Escalade.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797 |
My favorite ever food stamp story was this time I was in line at the grocery store. The people in front of me had absolute crap, expensive frozen meals, pizzas, pop, and a few things like top end filets and such .... They spend almost $150 on maybe 3 bags of groceries. Anyway, the girl turns to her boyfriend/husband/whatever and says .... as she pulls out her food stamp card ...... "Honey, who don't you start bagging our stuff?", and the kids says "Hmmp ... they couldn't pay me enough to bag groceries". The cashier gave him a look.... and I seriously just wanted to beat the living hell out of his ass right there in the damn grocery store. I can't count the times, back when I managed a convenience store, that I would get people who came in and bought $20 in subs ... pop..... chips .... and paid for that with food stamps ..... and then bought $30 worth of beer and liquor, cigarrettes, and then bought $20-30 worth of lottery tickets. Sure glad we help those in such desperate need. God knows I would have for them to have to use their lottery, beer, and cigarrette money on food and rent.  People wonder why working people sometimes have a problem with the welfare system. I had people working for me who worked 20 hours/week, and got damn near free housing, food stamps, medical care, assistance with their utilities, transportation, day care for their kids, and so on. Why would they even want to work 40 hours/week, or try to do better. They would have to take a step way back before they could take a step up. It's ridiculous. The system is designed to keep people in the system. It is one of the most disgusting things that society can do to people ..... and we think that vit's fine because it "helps people". It really doesn't though. It helps take care of their basic needs .... but what it takes from them in exchange is their very humanity. Nothing is of value to them because nothing is earned. Nothing matters. I really hate the times we live in. 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,432
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,432 |
Just a damn shame isn't it.. that so many folks need this help..
But as always, there are folks that misuse the system... I can't stand abusers of the system.
With unemployment as high as it is, we, as a people, have two choices.. help those out of work, or just let them flounder,,,,,
if we help them, we have to root out the abusers.. if we let them flounder,, get your guns ready,,, people will do whatever they have to do to survive.. that means steal from you if need be.
So, which would you all prefer?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,059
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,059 |
Isn't that what unemployment is for?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,393
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,393 |
Quote:
I can't count the times, back when I managed a convenience store, that I would get people who came in and bought $20 in subs ... pop..... chips .... and paid for that with food stamps ..... and then bought $30 worth of beer and liquor, cigarrettes, and then bought $20-30 worth of lottery tickets.
You gotta love it, we're the only country with fat poor people.
The other day in the gas station had to wait behind these two fat ladies count out nickles and dimes to buy cigarettes after they bought candy bars with their food credit card.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
When I was a young dawg back in a thing called "elementary" school I learned a phrase called "give a man a fish, he eats for a day ... but teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime." Seeing as I knew this by the age of 10 I feel as though the quickest solution to this would be as follows:
Give out a TON of money to anyone who has filled out their tax form the previous year and proves that they make under *$XXX" per year. Give them a lot more money than anyone could expect to earn without government help. Tell them this is a LOAN and that they will be FULLY responsible for EVERY PENNY ... UNLESS they use it to better themselves in some way. Use it to go to college, a trade school, even take some classes at the community center. As far as Im concerned that would be the best plan ... you would be taking the hit for training of individuals so that in a few years they wont be leaches on the system, they will be contributors to it.
I just dont get how anyone thinks someone will be overly motivated to better themselves ... if they are still getting by without working hard.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,432
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,432 |
Quote:
Isn't that what unemployment is for?
Yup,,, 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
A few years ago, when tens of thousands of people were removed from the Welfare rolls, despite all the dire predictions, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON starved to death. Not one. I am certain of this because it would have been all over the news if this had happened. The people who went out and got jobs were not reported on very much.
There are warehouses full of milk, wheat, cheese, and meat, that we the taxpayers have purchased, we pay to store, and we pay to dispose of after it rots and becomes useless. This vast amount of food should be used to help those who are truly in need. This all comes from farm price support programs.
As for those who would complain about lack of choice, if someone is hungry and asks for a seat at my table, if they want to complain about what I am serving I'll boot them out the door.
Listen to how the politicians talk about these programs. "I feed my region's hungry people", they will say. Even though they have never done a day of useful work in their lives, they speak as though they personally provided the resources for the "poor". It is shameless pandering, and we are the ones being pimped.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,432
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,432 |
Not sure why you are responding to me.. But let me say,, you make a lot of assertions with no back up.. someone (not me cause I don't really care enough) will make a big deal out of it.. Quote:
A few years ago, when tens of thousands of people were removed from the Welfare rolls, despite all the dire predictions, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON starved to death.
You go on to say there wasn't a report of that... I don't remember seeing one either but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Just saying.... But like I said, I don't care enough about it..
I work, I earn, I pay my bills, and I eat the food I earned the money to pay for.
I don't personally mind helping someone up.. it's the christian thing to do in my view, But there are limits to what I'll do for someone... at some point they gotta get off thier butts and do for themselves..
JMO
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,542
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,542 |
Many have needed assistance at one point or another during a bad spell, so there needs to be a means of short term support. That being said, there are some things that really need to change. There should be limits on how long anyone is on public support. It should not be used for lifetime support. There should be some kind of drug testing as a prequal and at random times while on support, and there has to be somebody in Washington that will really fight for jobs and trade policy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
You were just last on the list, but since you have challenged my statements...
What exactly are you questioning? The welfare cuts, Farm Price Support programs, the warehouses full of food?
Is it that no one was reported to have starved to death due to the reductions in welfare spending? I'll admit that my proof is of a negative nature, let me put this another way.
If I were to state that no one took a rifle shot at the president yesterday, my "proof" would be that there was no report of this anywhere in the news, and such an event would most certainly be front page all over the world. Now, someone starving to death after being forced off Welfare would have been a slightly lesser news event, but only slightly.
If the libs could have found just one example, after all their dire warnings about what catastrophe would result from actually making people work for a living, they would still be talking about it.
I'll guess you've also never heard of the survey wherein IIRC 87% of former Welfare recipients reported that they were "better off".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,786
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,786 |
a web link to your claim would be sufficient.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,432
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,432 |
Quote:
You were just last on the list, but since you have challenged my statements...
What exactly are you questioning? The welfare cuts, Farm Price Support programs, the warehouses full of food?
Is it that no one was reported to have starved to death due to the reductions in welfare spending? I'll admit that my proof is of a negative nature, let me put this another way.
If I were to state that no one took a rifle shot at the president yesterday, my "proof" would be that there was no report of this anywhere in the news, and such an event would most certainly be front page all over the world. Now, someone starving to death after being forced off Welfare would have been a slightly lesser news event, but only slightly.
If the libs could have found just one example, after all their dire warnings about what catastrophe would result from actually making people work for a living, they would still be talking about it.
I'll guess you've also never heard of the survey wherein IIRC 87% of former Welfare recipients reported that they were "better off".
This is what I'm questioning
Quote:
A few years ago, when tens of thousands of people were removed from the Welfare rolls, despite all the dire predictions, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON starved to death.
I'm not saying it isn't accurate, however it's a bold statement to make without some proof.....
make of it what you will.. as someone already wrote, a link to something verifying that info will do fine.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,027 |
web page
What's Wrong With This Idea?: "We'll Create Good American Jobs by Offshoring Them All "
This is what Americans were told some time ago when good manufacturing jobs were offshored (largely courtesy of the National Association of Manufacturers).
We were told that we were entering a new economy that had nothing to do with manufacturing. The offshoring was part of the "maturation of our economy." And so we were handed a promissory note that read as follows:
"Dear American: We don't like unions or high-paying union jobs, so we're sending manufacturing jobs offshore. We're not going to support the communities that this will disastrously impact when all those jobs are lost. We're going to do little or nothing to retrain the individuals who have lost those jobs due to offshoring. But don't worry. The stock market will do better, and trickle-down theory tells us that someday, somehow, good jobs, different jobs, will come back to America.
"Signed,
Mr. Nobody"
What happened? Well, those jobs didn't come back, and they weren't replaced with anything. Of course, the stock market hasn't been exactly booming, either, and job losses continue apace despite the "stimulus" package. The result: Mr. Nobody has gotten off scott free for the economic carnage that he wrought. Of course, that was predictable. No one is offshoring jobs to the United States, and "Mr. Nobody" runs the government, even under Obama (largely due to the fact that the worst American politicans weren't voted out in the 2008 election cycle). To this day, many of those areas of America that were involved in manufacturing remain blighted (Detroit has become a virtual ghost town). And if that doesn't make you mad, it should. No matter what you do for a living, chances are you'd be earning more now if it hadn't happened. We'll explain that point more fully in a moment.
For the millions of unemployed or underemployed, and for the many millions more who are fearful for their jobs, improvements in the performance of the stock market mean nothing at all, unless that improvement also entails an increase in jobs and job security. And stock market profitability can't be sustained without consumer demand. ("Consumer" currently meaning, in large part, "an individual who is unemployed, underemployed, or fearful of losing his or her job".) Job creation in the service sector of the economy, which was much trumpeted by the Bush administration, was no solution either. In fact, those jobs were a problem: they paid badly, and offered little in the way of benefits. In short, they amounted to a way of creating greater numbers of underemployed. Even those lousy jobs didn't exactly pour in. For example, in July, 2005, 207,000 jobs were created, virtually all of them in the service sector. The better part of them were in sales. (Ever done commission sales? Sometimes you have a paycheck. Sometimes you don't.) But 150,000 new jobs are needed each month just to keep pace with the increased needs resulting from immigration and new workers entering the workforce. And not only was this hyper-modest level of growth not sustained, we instead plummeted into massive job losses. (You can keep up with the latest developments at this url: http://www.americanprogress.org .) Now, of course, existing jobs continue to leave the economy at about the same rate that new ones are needed.
Bush Economic Policies Were Directly Responsible
Of course, it's not much of a secret that the American economy was a catastrophe for the entire course of the Bush administration. What does seem to be something of an open secret is the fact that economic policies embraced by Bush, and not coincidentally endorsed by transnational corporations (= Wall Street) and the financial sector, exacerbated that poor performance, and, as we predicted some years back (in 2005), helped transform it into an economic meltdown. (The sub-prime mortgage fiasco was only the tip of the iceberg, and wouldn't have been nearly as virulent as it has been if Americans had had better jobs.).
As we just noted, the economy has nowhere to go when consumers have no money to spend. Consumers have no money to spend when they're unemployed, and are much less likely to spend when they're underemployed or fear for their jobs. This kind of scenario sets the stage for a deflationary economy, in which consumers with less to spend reduce demand, which reduces prices, which reduces profit margins, which results in layoffs, which results in even greater fears of job loss. A stimulus package can't reverse this dynamic indefinitely. Only robust job creation can do that.
Bad? You bet. But the Worst may be Yet to Come.
The year and a half prior to 9/11 saw the loss of 1.6 million American jobs. The six months following 9/11 saw the loss of an additional 2.5 million American jobs. Obviously, Americans are right in believing they have a lot to fear; but the truth is that they have far more to fear than they have yet realized. That's because, if offshoring isn't reversed, millions and millions and millions more American jobs are going to be lost in the decade ahead, particularly better-paying jobs. How many more millions? A good question. Incredibly, the government still isn't even keeping track of the jobs already being lost to offshoring, nor is the media doing much of anything to report that rate (a state of affairs that must be intentional). But one estimate is that one-third of all US jobs are offshorable, and many of these are the kind of jobs that underpin the American middle-class, upon which the entire economy depends. This would, of course, mean that there would never be a true recovery from the meltdown of 2008.
How Did We Get Here?
Certainly not by accident. Most of this job loss is due to the process euphemistically known as "globalization", and globalization is no blind force of history or economics. You've heard of NAFTA and the WTO? They're part of the globalization framework. And the FTAA Bush so strongly endorsed was more of the same — but much worse.
Globalization has deep historical roots. The process has been aggressively fostered by the wealthy for years through the corporate corruption of governments all over the world, including that of the US, and through the corruption of international institutions like the World Bank and the IMF which, in effect, utilize a vicious version of economic blackmail on behalf of large corporations with no loyalty to any nation. While globalization is a complex phenomenon with many aspects, one of the simplest to understand is this: when American-based companies are subsidized for shipping American jobs overseas, they will. (Despite Obama rhetoric, nothing has yet been done about this.) Indeed, the only jobs that aren't likely to be so exported are those tied directly to local economies — mostly the badly paying service jobs we mentioned earlier. This situation is wonderful, certainly, for those already wealthy (since the mid-70s the only real winners in the globalizing economy), but the process of job exporting can only crush the middle class, because there will always be immense pools of cheap labor overseas.
The Fantasies of Wall Street
Absurdly, Americans have been urged to "retrain" or acquire "additional skills" in the face of the trend to send jobs offshore — as if the vast majority of jobs they might retrain for couldn't just as easily be sent offshore, too, no matter what "additional skills" they might acquire. Too, the exporting of any job from any sector increases pressure on all the remaining sectors, because it increases the labor supply and drives down wages for everybody. Worst of all, the offshoring trend, though slowed for the moment in the face of public outrage, may well begin accelerating again, possibly even faster; and if this occurs it will continue to make for tremendous economic turbulence, which will make it difficult to even guess what to retrain for. No, what Wall Street has really meant all along is this: "Americans should retrain themselves, at their own expense, of course, for less skilled jobs for lower pay and fewer benefits."
As we noted above, some have claimed that the savings corporations realize by offshoring jobs are ultimately returned to investors and are thereby eventually pumped back into the economy. This argument no longer has a leg to stand on. If it had been true, the events of 2008 would have been far less dire, which makes it clear that the argument was simply another version of long discredited trickle-down economics. How much in the way of goods can, say, a Bill Gates possibly buy? We've already seen in the clearest possible terms that that the process doesn't automatically entail domestic job creation, and globalization weakens labor unions, by far the most effective force (indeed, very nearly the only one) for promoting wage increases. Since jobs that are offshored are gone for good, the very likely fate of a person who has lost a manufacturing job is to eventually get a lower-paid job after a long period of unemployment — and that represents a permanent or semi-permanent loss of income. And other troubling questions remain: whose economy, and which investors profit? When the products that are purchased are increasingly overseas imports, who ends up with most of the that profit? Today, incredibly, the US has piled up more debt with China than any other country in the world. Moreover, even today, most US stock is held by those already wealthy. The truth is that of the total gain in marketable wealth from 1983 to 1998, more than half went to the richest 1 percent, and they don't buy much in the way of goods (rather, they tend to place that money in the stock market, thereby creating economic bubbles of the kind we saw in 2001). Of course, even if it were true, trickle-down theory doesn't address the massive problems of environmental degradation, the loss of national sovereignty, and the assaults on democracy also engendered by globalization.
The Reality on Main Street
The upshot of all of this is that you can run, but you can't hide.
The corporate cure for accelerating unemployment due to globalization and offshoring is so much snake oil, and was never more than a very deliberate effort to obscure the deadly seriousness of the problem. Neither retraining nor re-education are, or even conceivably could be, the answer for most Americans; and trade imbalances and job loss and career destabilization and environmental and community destruction vitiate whatever little benefit might be derived from globalization for working Americans. The "wall" that most politicians are telling us we can't build around the American employment market is the dike that must be built if we are to retain quality jobs. Or, to change metaphors, it's the compression bandage that should have been applied years ago when we began hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs.
What Can Be Done?
For better or for worse, this is one issue that, in the short term, can only be addressed by political action and/or massively increased unionization.
The transnationals, who have been anticipating this response for some time, continue to scream (as they always scream) that regulation and unionization aren't the answer (again, they suggest retraining). But aside from economic logic, history also makes it clear that these are the only possible answers.
Why Does Wall Street Hate Americans?
For half of the existence of America, slavery, the ownership of another human being for purposes of economic exploitation, was legal. Why? Because the slaveowners were addicted to cheap labor. Even child labor was legal in the United States until the agitation of Progressives (especially that of Mother Jones) finally forced businessmen to eliminate the practice in 1938. How could an institution as pernicious as child labor have remained legal for so long? Because businessmen were addicted to cheap labor. And all of this is to say nothing of the horrific conditions of employment that Upton Sinclair wrote of, or the incredibly long working weeks and low wages that were endemic until Americans organized, unionized, and legislative reforms were passed over the vociferous objections and treacherous backroom maneuvering of businessmen. Indeed, it was in large part unionization and regulatory legislative reform, and emphatically not trickle-down, that set the stage for a prosperous post World War II middle class.
Now, we have globalization and the offshoring of jobs. The addiction is no less gripping, and is vastly more far-reaching; and this is why the need for reform legislation hasn't been so urgent since the 1930s. The sooner we curtail this latest addiction, the better the chances of effective control.
The alternative, continued offshoring, the impact of which has already contributed immensely to something close to the outright destruction of the American middle class, would have truly catastrophic consequences for the American economy; and since the US economy is the workhorse of the international economy, the consequences would unquestionably be global, affecting virtually all of humanity. Some have said there's no going "back". The truth, however, is the world can't go "forward" with policies desired almost exclusively by the CEOs of self-interested transnational corporations. If there is to be globalization at all, it must look radically different from anything currently on the table, and it must proceed at a far slower pace.
What steps, then, to take?
First, we suggest that you further educate yourself regarding the nature of globalization. The most indispensable reading here is David Korten's When Corporations Rule the World. You might also consider subscribing to the Nader-founded Multinational Monitor, which will keep you abreast of more current developments. So will Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. A book that focuses a little more narrowly on jobs and on how offshoring came about is America: What Went Wrong? by Donald Barlett and James Steele. Conservatives take note (and everyone else, too): Chapter 11 of NAFTA is an end-run around the US constitution. So is Chapter 10 of CAFTA. Get the details.
The US should return to steeply progressive income taxes. When the ultrawealthy have nothing to gain from the process of globalization, the process will soon slow. This would also set the stage for desperately needed, and effective, trickle-up economics. When you put more money in the hands of working Americans, that money finds its way into the economy quickly.
American voters should be very, very wary of voting Republican. While the Democratic track record on globalization is poor, it is nevertheless enormously better than the dismal record of the Republicans. (Most continue to aggressively promote globalization.) No matter how the economy performs under Obama, it has nowhere at all to go except collapse under Republican leadership.
Work to oppose Republican trade policies. There was never a president more pro-globalization and pro-offshoring than George Bush. Even with Republican majorities in the House and Senate, CAFTA was very nearly defeated because of pressure from American voters. For all of his patriotic posturing, Bush was the most virulently anti-American president in US history, if by "America" we mean working Americans.
H-1B and L1 visa programs were responsible for the loss of more than a million American jobs to overseas workers, even as American IT workers searched for work. It's time to eliminate provisions for job shortages that don't exist (and never did). Keep a close eye on immigration plans, which can, in effect, be job giveaway programs.
Incredibly, even in late 2009, US taxpayers are still funding numerous Federal programs that provide incentives for US corporations to relocate their jobs offshore by way of providing loans, subsidies, credits, or loan guarantees. All such funding and all such incentives must cease immediately. (Again, Obama has promised action that hasn't materialized.) Funding and incentives to keep jobs in the US should take their place. Penalties for offshoring should receive study. Fines or taxes levied on job-exporting corporations could be devoted to extending unemployment compensation benefits, funding for small business creation by the unemployed, and so forth.
US funding of the World Bank (which brokers many deals that result in job exporting) and the IMF should be tapered off and eventually eliminated. Both institutions should be scrapped and alternative institutions created from scratch.
The FTAA, CAFTA, and other globalization-promoting accords must be scuttled. Organizations promoting globalization, such as the National Association of Manufacturers, should receive greater media scrutiny, and their position, and its dismal implications for US employment, should be exposed.
Corporations exporting the largest number of jobs should be identified and boycotted.
Americans must cure themselves of their addiction to television and newspaper news. Very nearly all of the mass media are very much in favor of globalization, and, although they're careful to hide it well, are rabidly opposed to unionization. Instead, we suggest that you consider subscribing to one of the news sources mentioned in our political field guide or our guide to legitimate, democratic media.
Oppose further media consolidation. The implications of globalization aren't being adequately reported. Support media diversification (PBS and NPR are doing by far the best job among the mass media, but are still under-reporting most globalization-related issues). The Media Access Project is doing good work in the area of diversification.
Since the corporate media are flatly opposed to the interests of ordinary Americans on this issue, it's up to working people to get the word out. Share this editorial with your friends and family.
If your workplace is unionized, consider joining. If it's not unionized, consider organizing one. Work to remove all barriers to union organizing.
Write the media and write your representatives regarding your concerns about globalization and offshoring. Here are the basic tools:
Write your congressperson here: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Write your senator here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Determine who's telling your representatives to vote against working Americans here: http://www.opensecrets.org . Don't spend your money with those companies.
Support organizations working to get corporate money out of government. The standard bearer for years has been Common Cause: http://www.commoncause.org/ Organizations working for publicly funded elections also merit your support.
Corporate capitalism is in urgent need of fundamental reforms. The point is made devastatingly in Marjorie Kelly's critique "The Divine Right of Capital." The biggest, best-kept political and economic secret today is the fact that other forms of capitalism are possible, have been immensely successful, and some give working people a much fairer shake. See our section on economics for details of Mondragon capitalism. There's a link below. You can also read our essay "Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism: What They Are, Why They Don't Work, What Works Better".
Some web links dealing with the offshoring of jobs are as follows:
http://www.washtech.org/wt/ (high tech jobs are being particularly hard hit by offshoring practices - and that affects everyone, no matter what they do for a living)
http://www.hireamericancitizens.org
Local economic self-sufficiency should be maximized instead of global economic dependency. Numerous practices for greening the global economy can be found in our economics field guide.
Tips for who to vote against can be found in our Field Guide to American Politicians.
If working Americans don't take immediate steps to stop globalization, who will? And if globalization isn't stopped, the consequences will be dire indeed.
The Editors
Progressive Living
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,230
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,230 |
Blame Bush all you want....but since then we've had 2 years of Obamanomics, 4 years of a liberal controlled congress, an unprecedented trillion dollars plus of stimulus money, and we're setting food stamp records? Change you can believe in.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797 |
It'll be Bush's fault for mac if we (God forbid) have Democrat controlled filibuster proof majorities in the Senate and a Democrat controlled House and a Democrat in the White House for the next 20 years. mac will be in a state run nursing home, eating government bread and cheese, waiting for his government bus to take him to the government health facility ..... and he'll still be whining about Bush. Until one of his nurses can't take it anymore, and gets authorization to euthenize him.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Only robust job creation can do that.
When we let politicians let the manufacturers let someone else build the parts, we cannot fix/do this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
The sub-prime mortgage fiasco was only the tip of the iceberg, and wouldn't have been nearly as virulent as it has been if Americans had had better jobs.
Tip of the iceberg? That is the iceberg!
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
I am unable to find any reputable source which states that any single individual did, in fact, starve to death as a result of the welfare cuts which were pushed by a Republican congress and signed by Bill Clinton.
My point is that, if such an event had occurred, there would have been plenty of coverage. There was none. Therefore, I conclude that it never happened. This seems obvious to me, please explain in detail where you are failing to follow this train of thought.
It is interesting how "assertions", plural, became narrowed down to a single statement, the nature of which does not really allow for an absolute proof. The proof must be inferred from related information.
There were dozens of Democratic congressman, staffers, and liberal pundits stating clearly, loudly, and repeatedly that reducing the Welfare rolls would result in large numbers of starvation deaths. These men and women are liars, thieves, and cowards.
When they were told that the free ride was over, most of those who were depending on the taxpayer for their needs went out and got jobs, and discovered that they were able to provide for themselves. I do not consider this a bold, or revolutionary, statement in any way. More like a very basic concept that is mandatory to grasp.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
This situation is wonderful, certainly, for those already wealthy since the mid-70s the only real winners in the globalizing economy
amazingly of all the incredulous arguments in that piece, this one is the worst.
ask a Chinese or Indian immigrant if the conditions of their homelands have improved since the 70's when these manufacturing jobs have been moved overseas.
the funniest part of all of this: globalization is actually a liberal policy when you think about it. it helps "level' the standard of living throughout the world. it helps bring up the 3rd world countries standard of living while, at the same time, bringing down the level of living in the highest ranking countries.
in terms of globalization, 'everyone' in the USA is a super-rich aristocrat (the poorest in this country are so much better off than the poorest in China, Malaysia, etc).
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
mac I agree with the premise.. globalization is a scary thing.. I find many of the blaming parts of the article to be utter BS but the premise is right..
But when the self-defined "answer" to the problem is bigger stronger unions and bigger stronger legislation for our more powerful federal government.. I also find that rather scary...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
I dont think globalization is a scary thing unless you are "comfortable" ...
In america, we have people that have pushed for safety standards, better insurance, shorter workdays, more holidays, higher pay, unions ... etc ...
If you are a manager of a division ... why on earth would you pay a guy in Toledo $20.00 per hour (or a factory full of them) ... when you could go 30 minutes north and pay a factory of guys in Detroit minimum wage...? If you did, you'd probably be fired for not maximizing value.
So... why does everyone get upset when a company opens a factory in China, Taiwan, India, South America .... instead of countries like those in Europe and America (which have traditionally had higher wages then other companies)
The point is ... if you are good at what you do.. you can "compete" with any other worker ... regardless of where they are from. But if you are only mediocre and not pushing to be better at what you do ... you don't want to compete with people from other states, let alone other countries.
Globalization is a zero sum game economically... and some people still dont get that. People dont want to lose jobs overseas ... yet are the first people who shop at walmart and buy products from overseas...
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Oh I get that, I also found it funny that it is the tech jobs that are going overseas now... we entrepreneured the automobile assembly line etc and we competed with some European countries to make the best cars.. then as shipping costs decreased and we discovered dirt cheap labor rates in other countries, we lost many of our automobile jobs.. Then we invented and manufactured some of the best technology of the day, the VCR, the color television, the microwave, etc.. same thing happens, other countries catch on to the technology and those jobs get shipped overseas... so we lead the world through the tech revolution of the 90s and now those jobs are leaving... but its all Bush's fault because this has never happened before... 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,432
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,432 |
I guess it depends on what you call Tech Jobs., But a company named TaTa has been doing work for what was NCB in India for close to 15 years now that I'm aware of.. Probably a little longer.. That work was all programming and systems relates stuff...
HP has been shipping Helpdesk/tech support work to India for at least 5 years, probably more.. I'm sure there are other examples..
But outsourcing Tech jobs isn't new at all....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
I guess it depends on what you call Tech Jobs., But a company named TaTa has been doing work for what was NCB in India for close to 15 years now that I'm aware of.. Probably a little longer.. That work was all programming and systems relates stuff...
HP has been shipping Helpdesk/tech support work to India for at least 5 years, probably more.. I'm sure there are other examples..
But outsourcing Tech jobs isn't new at all....
It gets even worse when we have a governor (Arnold Swartnegar) going to Russia to help them build their own Silicon Valley... I heard that and I am WTH???
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
I am unable to find any reputable source which states that any single individual did, in fact, starve to death as a result of the welfare cuts which were pushed by a Republican congress and signed by Bill Clinton.
My point is that, if such an event had occurred, there would have been plenty of coverage. There was none. Therefore, I conclude that it never happened. This seems obvious to me, please explain in detail where you are failing to follow this train of thought. ...
....When they were told that the free ride was over, most of those who were depending on the taxpayer for their needs went out and got jobs, and discovered that they were able to provide for themselves. I do not consider this a bold, or revolutionary, statement in any way. More like a very basic concept that is mandatory to grasp.
Another very basic concept to grasp is the fact that we are in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The reduction in welfare during the Clinton years was doable b/c that was the highest peak our economy had ever reached; there were enough jobs to go around. In short, how is it fair to compare the late Clinton years to now when economic conditions are drastically different?
Today, unemployment hovers near 10%, with unemployment plus underemployment around 17%. There are not enough job openings for the number of unemployed (last numbers I have seen are something like 5 unemployed people for every job opening). It is really rough out there, and a lot of people have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. If you are suggesting that we "remove their welfare, they will not starve, and they will be forced to go out and get jobs" I believe at this point in history you are way off base. There aren't jobs to be had.
link to my numbers:
http://www.bls.gov/
Last edited by tjs7; 10/10/10 06:13 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Excellent, you agree that the size and scope of the "safety net" can easily get out of hand. It would follow that the total expenditure must be reduced whenever possible.
Next concept is that government is totally inept at running such an operation, and deeply opposed to reducing the number of voters dependent on their control of taxpayer dollars. This power must be removed.
Charitable organizations, whatever they are "based" on, are far more efficient at distributing aid and more or less self-regulating as to size. They do not mandate any specific contribution but allow each to give as they see fit. Being more locally-based, they are better at weeding out fraud, and giving effective employment assistance.
While I can agree with losing a job through "no fault of your own", this could be seen to imply that not having a job now is "somebody else's fault". No one is entitled to employment, just the opportunity to seek it.
I have been a self-employed small businessman for most of the last 20 years. I know it's thin out there. As my father used to say, " Hunger is an EXCELLENT motivator."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
Excellent, you agree that the size and scope of the "safety net" can easily get out of hand. It would follow that the total expenditure must be reduced whenever possible.
Right, at the precise time in history when it is needed, we should slash the safety net. Let's kick desperate people while they're down. There are not enough jobs to go around, not everyone has relatives/friends who can help them, and charities are stretched beyond their limits due to the economic downturn.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/17/news/economy/donations_decline/index.htm
Quote:
Next concept is that government is totally inept at running such an operation, and deeply opposed to reducing the number of voters dependent on their control of taxpayer dollars. This power must be removed.
Charitable organizations, whatever they are "based" on, are far more efficient at distributing aid and more or less self-regulating as to size. They do not mandate any specific contribution but allow each to give as they see fit. Being more locally-based, they are better at weeding out fraud, and giving effective employment assistance.
The growth of the safety net the last two years is largely tied to the poor economy. It is not a political strategy. The rules and guidelines haven't changed; the number of underemployed has.
If welfare were simply about buying votes with taxpayer dollars, why would welfare use show an inverse correlation with the economy? Wouldn't the government just target as many as possible, good or bad economy, to secure the most votes possible? Also, why would they target the poor as a means to secure votes? People living in poverty are typically underrepresented at voting booths for various reasons. It's either the stupidest political strategy in history, or it's largely not about politics. I would say possibility 2 is more likely.
http://democracysouth.org/vcmwp/?p=53
As for charitable organizations being better than government, I would like to see a study that shows this. I hear people constantly saying that the government is terribly inefficient, but never once have I seen any reference to an empirical study that supports this. It is always quoted as some kind of natural fact or with a small amount of anecdotal evidence.
The problem with relying solely on voluntary donations is that during economic downturns when consumer confidence is shaken, people don't give as much to charities and leave them underfunded at precisely the time when the help is needed. Also, being more locally based leads to charities having more of a presence in more affluent localities, and less so in the less affluent areas where they are really needed.
Quote:
While I can agree with losing a job through "no fault of your own", this could be seen to imply that not having a job now is "somebody else's fault". No one is entitled to employment, just the opportunity to seek it.
I have been a self-employed small businessman for most of the last 20 years. I know it's thin out there. As my father used to say, " Hunger is an EXCELLENT motivator."
It's not a fair extrapolation to go from "no fault of their own" to "somebody else's fault." This argument would be like someone losing control on a patch of ice and getting in an accident. It's not necessarily the driver of the car's fault, but it's also no one else's fault. And not one single time in any of my posts did I ever say that anyone was entitled to employment.
As for hunger as a great motivator, I think that knife cuts both ways. You're assuming that the motivation would drive people to find jobs. However, if you have a desperate group of people that there are no jobs for (and no friends/relatives to help) and they rely on the safety net to survive right now, and you take that away, they will be motivated to seek any means necessary to eat. They won't starve, but if there are no jobs to be had, what do you think they'll do? More will steal what they need before they starve.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Right, at the precise time in history when it is needed, we should slash the safety net. Let's kick desperate people while they're down.
It's not the safety net that needs slashed, safety net in some form is an absolute must.. it's the people receiving public assistance for years, its the people cashing their public assistance checks in Vegas and on cruise ships.. that is where the slashing needs to occur.. not the ones using a safety net in a bad time, but the ones using it as a means of subsistence for years...
Quote:
The growth of the safety net the last two years is largely tied to the poor economy. It is not a political strategy. The rules and guidelines haven't changed; the number of underemployed has.
We could argue this until we are both blue in the face but I could easily make the point that the democrats have faired pretty well from having a large number of people on public assistance and in programs that they are always hoping to grow and expand... not only does it get those poor people to vote for them, it also gets a lot of guilty rich people to vote for them...
Quote:
As for charitable organizations being better than government, I would like to see a study that shows this. I hear people constantly saying that the government is terribly inefficient, but never once have I seen any reference to an empirical study that supports this. It is always quoted as some kind of natural fact or with a small amount of anecdotal evidence.
Do a random check of some charities.. the Cleveland Food Bank took in $37 million, less than $3 million went to pay administrative fees.. less than 10%... The NC Boys and Girls Club took in over $5 million and less than a million went to admin.. less than 20%... Do you need an empirical study to show that 85-90% of the money pumped into the federal governments social programs is not actually making it to the families that need it? How much do you think gets gobbled up and never makes it outside the beltway?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
Do a random check of some charities.. the Cleveland Food Bank took in $37 million, less than $3 million went to pay administrative fees.. less than 10%... The NC Boys and Girls Club took in over $5 million and less than a million went to admin.. less than 20%... Do you need an empirical study to show that 85-90% of the money pumped into the federal governments social programs is not actually making it to the families that need it? How much do you think gets gobbled up and never makes it outside the beltway?
I'll concede that those are pretty efficient numbers. But no better than the federal food stamp program. The food stamp program was authorized $50.3 billion for 2009 and spent $49.8 billion. $46.9 billion of that went to benefits, with only $3.4 billion spent in administrative costs and other costs. By your measure, that is around 7%, right on par with or better than the charities.
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/factsheets/2009/foodstamps.pdf
Your claim of 90% not making it to the families that need it is also unsubstantiated. For food stamps, the national combined payment error rate is 4.4%, with 98% of all disbursements going to households that qualify.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3239
So yes, I do need evidence before believing that federal programs are completely wasteful and that 90% of benefits never reach those they were intended to reach.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797 |
I have a serious question.
What are the administrative costs associated with the food stamp program that are not overlapped by other social program spending?
I would guess that people on food stamps don't go to a "food stamp office", but rather to their local welfare office. They probably don't see a food stamp councillor, but rather a welfare case worker. I would guess that they have to have someone put the benefits on the little card each month ..... but much of that is probably done by computer in the local welfare office.
So what administrative costs are there that don't overlap other services?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,925
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,925 |
Here's how the gov't. works: This is not a true story in that it happened - but it describes gov't. pretty well. Here goes:
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.
Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.
Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.
Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So They created two positions: a time keeper and a payroll officer, then hired two people.
Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people? So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an
Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.
Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one Year and we are $918,000 over budget, we must cutback." So they laid off the night watchman.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
That is a good question. While I couldn't find a good breakdown of costs, this link does say that the administrative costs do include "the federal share of state administrative expenses and employment and training programs." http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htmI really don't know beyond that, but my interpretation is that there probably is an office building shared by many of these services, with each program paying its proportion of the administrative expenses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
It's not the safety net that needs slashed, safety net in some form is an absolute must.. it's the people receiving public assistance for years, its the people cashing their public assistance checks in Vegas and on cruise ships.. that is where the slashing needs to occur.. not the ones using a safety net in a bad time, but the ones using it as a means of subsistence for years...
It was my understanding that this doesn't exist anymore. There were few limitations on the AFDC program that existed from the 1930's to the 1990's. But the PRWORA signed into law in 1996 reformed most welfare programs so that they were no longer entitlements, had requirements of finding a job within 2 years of starting benefits, and capped total lifetime benefits at five years. There are not many ways to stay on welfare for a lifetime anymore.
As frustrating as it may be that some people blow welfare money in Vegas, unless you can show me that this is the rule rather than the exception, then this just falls under the category of no system ever existed that wasn't taken advantage of by some small number of people. Those stories make the news; the numerous families that quietly use the welfare to get back on their feet do not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797 |
Have a kid.
18-24 years of benefits coming your way .... month after month after month .......
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
I don't think that is how it works. This article states that "On time limits, the general rule is that no family that includes an adult recipient may receive federally-funded assistance for longer than 60 months (whether or not consecutive)." http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=936If the child were without living parents or guardian, then they could receive the benefits until they were 18, then the normal adult rules apply. This way families can't get aid for their kids and use it for themselves in perpetuity.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Food stamp recipients at an all
time high
|
|
