- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The number of New York City residents receiving food stamps more than doubled over the past decade under Mayor Bloomberg, according to data released yesterday.Now, 1.8 million receive food stamps, a jump from 800,000 in 2002, the Independent Budget Office data show.
IBO spokesman Doug Turetsky cited more aggressive outreach to enroll eligible recipients by the Bloomberg administration, in comparison to his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani.
The cost of the federally funded food-stamp program in the city skyrocketed to $3.4 billion from $1.28 billion over the past decade.
New York City food-stamp recipients double under Mayor Bloomberg - NYPOST.com
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activistsRichard Cloward (1926–2001) and Frances Fox Piven (b. 1932) that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".
Cloward
What a failure progressive policy is....
Just remember who to blame when this all collapses....
Is a policy a failure if it keeps you in political power and is "paid for" with money borrowed in the names of others? Income redistribution is perfect (politically) since you use other people's money to buy your votes. As long as enough morons believe that they can get "free" stuff by forcing others to pay their "fair share" then this is unstopable.
Unfortunately it is a prescription for collapse in the long run.
What a failure progressive policy is....
Just remember who to blame when this all collapses....
Make passing a drug test a requirment for food stamps garentee you those numbers will drop
A late apple harvest and a shortage of apple pickers has added short-term stress to the final weeks of the Washington apple harvest and added to long-term worries about labor availability for Northwest tree fruit growers.
Meanwhile, growers have trouble finding enough workers to harvest the food to be given away to food stamp recipients:
example:
I've seen apples in the stores selling for over $2 a pound.
People who go out and work, even if they're doing field work, should have more than people who don't.
That's not how it is, but how it should be.
Make passing a drug test a requirment for food stamps garentee you those numbers will drop
Make taxation a requirement for gov't spending and I will guarantee that ALL gov't spending will drop.
Just remember who to blame when this all collapses....
The question is no how many or how few are taking food stamps or any ther welfare, but how real the need is. And shouldn't someone o a fair, verifiable, proper study on how much is really fraud or abuse? Wouldn't that be more productive?
I tend to agree with this, if I understand you correctly. I believe most of the expansion of the program isn't so much a larger need, but rather an expansion of how we define "need".The question is no how many or how few are taking food stamps or any ther welfare, but how real the need is. And shouldn't someone o a fair, verifiable, proper study on how much is really fraud or abuse? Wouldn't that be more productive?
The entire concept is whacked, trying to create a "living wage" by gov't fiat. You must expect non-disabled people to live on their income, not automagically expand their income, via gov't forced income redistribution schemes, to accomodate their "needs". Two citizens, working side by side at the same job, should not have their "fair compensation", for that same labor, be gov't determined by their chosen "cost of living", or the number of dependents that they choose to share it with. From each according to their ability (to pay taxes), to each according to their need (for free stuff) - is an insane public policy.
I tend to agree with this, if I understand you correctly. I believe most of the expansion of the program isn't so much a larger need, but rather an expansion of how we define "need".
The entire concept is whacked, trying to create a "living wage" by gov't fiat. You must expect non-disabled people to live on their income, not automagically expand their income, via gov't forced income redistribution schemes, to accomodate their "needs". Two citizens, working side by side at the same job, should not have their "fair compensation", for that same labor, be gov't determined by their chosen "cost of living", or the number of dependents that they choose to share it with. From each according to their ability (to pay taxes), to each according to their need (for free stuff) - is an insane public policy.
What a failure progressive policy is....
Just remember who to blame when this all collapses....
Exactly. As I showed in another thread discussing social democracies, the Scandinavian model of setting a "living" wage has only led to a cost of living in those countries up to 70% higher than the US.
Give everyone a million dollars and bread would cost a grand. Progress!
Yep. It all looks so good and fair on paper, yet who would be a construction worker, exposed to hard work outside when the same "wages" are offered for a nice safe, comfortable McJob or Walmart greeter position? Doctor = McWorker = lawyer = carpenter = truck driver = waiter teacher = chef = farmer = CEO; they all get that same gov't defined "living wage" and will accept and like it because it is "fair".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?