Am I the only one that pays for my groceries?

[mrsleeve]

ok sorry would hippie commune be more to your liking :giggle:

[Fusion]

Try saying that to the inmates :D

[sam3]

I work PT at a drug and alcohol rehab, it's called "Transitional Housing", the only thing these people are transitioning through is winter, most of them have been in and out a dozen times, they all qualify for food stamps, SSI, and welfare as soon as they check in because they're now homeless! they get paid by HUD for "work therapy" (sitting around playing Yahtzee), the facility buys all of it's food with HUD and USDA grants, the residents are all on 10 prescription drugs (State and Federal subsidies, and medicaid, of course because being a doper is a disablity). So cheer up, you're not only buying your own food, you're buying everyone else's too.

[sam3]

Oh Yeah, and all of the bloated staff of Social Workers and Therapists eat for free as well. The whole racket should be called FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR OVERWEIGHT SOCIAL WORKERS.

[BraveUlysses]

Argument does not suck, in fact its 100% valid and seems to be working well. read the book I mentioned a few posts back. You might be kinda surprised what you learn . Shit even the founders warned of this kinda shit

I don't think you are understanding my point. If gwb72tii is willing to complain that food stamps and welfare are vote purchases for the poor and young (who are statistically, very low turnout voters). He should be willing to criticize the fact that Social Security is the same thing, but on a much more expensive scale (he won't because he's probably retired or close to it).

Next WHY THE FUCK SHOULD S.S. be fucking means tested????

Because there's no reason for wealth redistribution to people who don't need it. SS was intended to be poverty insurance for the elderly...it's not doing that if anyone over 65 who paid in at any point gets to collect checks for the rest of their lives.

If you're going to complain about people receiving government money (for food and housing) when you think they don't need it, at least be logically consistent and extend your criticism to SS while you're at it.

[smooth]

please stop with the logical points because you're detracting from my enjoyment of the otherwise rampant ignorance on display in here

[mrsleeve]

^

his points are only logical from the standpoint of bleeding heart, eat the rich, they dont need take it form them mentality.

I don't think you are understanding my point. If gwb72tii is willing to complain that food stamps and welfare are vote purchases for the poor and young (who are statistically, very low turnout voters). He should be willing to criticize the fact that Social Security is the same thing, but on a much more expensive scale (he won't because he's probably retired or close to it).



Because there's no reason for wealth redistribution to people who don't need it. SS was intended to be poverty insurance for the elderly...it's not doing that if anyone over 65 who paid in at any point gets to collect checks for the rest of their lives.

If you're going to complain about people receiving government money (for food and housing) when you think they don't need it, at least be logically consistent and extend your criticism to SS while you're at it.

The fact that you use this term says much, and the notion of it is WRONG and immoral too boot. Its something WE ALL pay into when we work, with the understanding we get it back when we are old enough to retire. There is no way to OPT OUT of this, so there for your argument amounts to theft period, and end of story.


When SSI was adopted and set up the average life span was 63, we the general population were never intended to collect it for more than a few years at best. You want to be consistent lets raise the collection age to about 82. Just so the govt can have its giant slush fund all back to its self.

[sofargone561]

i hate the whole food stamps bullshit why can they buy all the junmk food bullshit and friend chicken with my money granted there are ppl who need food stamps and should have then but not 1 in 6 people and they shouldnt be able to buy half the shit they do.

[smooth]

When SSI was adopted and set up the average life span was 63, we the general population were never intended to collect it for more than a few years at best. You want to be consistent lets raise the collection age to about 82. Just so the govt can have its giant slush fund all back to its self.

Life Expectancy for Social Security
If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.

As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21, and men who attained age 65 could expect to collect Social Security benefits for almost 13 years (and the numbers are even higher for women).

Also, it should be noted that there were already 7.8 million Americans age 65 or older in 1935 (cf. Table 2), so there was a large and growing population of people who could receive Social Security. Indeed, the actuarial estimates used by the Committee on Economic Security (CES) in designing the Social Security program projected that there would be 8.3 million Americans age 65 or older by 1940 (when monthly benefits started). So Social Security was not designed in such a way that few people would collect the benefits.

As Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.

(Increases in life expectancy are a factor in the long-range financing of Social Security; but other factors, such as the sheer size of the "baby boom" generation, and the relative proportion of workers to beneficiaries, are larger determinants of Social Security's future financial condition.)




Table 1: Life Expectancy for Social Security
Year Cohort Turned 65 Percentage of Population Surviving from Age 21 to Age 65 Average Remaining Life Expectancy for Those Surviving to Age 65

-- http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

[Threehz]

Let's just grind inmates into burgers, and restrict food stamp purchase to those burgers.

Win.

[BraveUlysses]

^

his points are only logical from the standpoint of bleeding heart, eat the rich, they dont need take it form them mentality.





The fact that you use this term says much, and the notion of it is WRONG and immoral too boot. Its something WE ALL pay into when we work, with the understanding we get it back when we are old enough to retire. There is no way to OPT OUT of this, so there for your argument amounts to theft period, and end of story.


When SSI was adopted and set up the average life span was 63, we the general population were never intended to collect it for more than a few years at best. You want to be consistent lets raise the collection age to about 82. Just so the govt can have its giant slush fund all back to its self.

You have a reading comprehension problem, and you lack the ability or will to make a coherent, logical argument.

Keep slaying those strawmen! I'm not making any of those arguments you're trying to pin on me.

YOU ARE THE ONE who supports direct wealth redistribution--that is EXACTLY what SS is. You just pretend that paying into SS is somehow different than paying into the general federal income. FICA redistributes ALL of the funds to the elderly, and the federal budget redistributes a small portion of federal funds to food stamp and welfare programs. Everyone pays into both buckets.

[rwh11385]

Threehz = brilliant post, along with several other good comments in this thread.

A dishwasher is not a requirement for survival, nor is cable, a flat screen TV, or a smart phone. I wish everyone these days had a greater understanding of need means. Of those things, I had cable and my friends bugged me why I didn't buy a new TV or an iPhone but I didn't see the reason to join them in consumption. Certainly if you have the money and find great utility in these things, all liberty to do so... but if you are on a handout, you have no business in expensive shoes, designer clothes, with a huge TV and expensive services.

And then there is this new abuse of the food stamp program: http://www.salon.com/2010/03/16/hips...tamps_pinched/
I'd venture to guess that a good number of those people are the same camping out in public parks...

[Jand3rson]

You can buy Red Bull and a few other energy drinks on Food Stamps in Oregon now, too.