Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

2Thick...Calling ya out!!!

bwood

Banned
2Thick said:
Fucking low-lives. They are sucking the country dry.

Wait a minute, welfare only accounts for 1% of the budget. Makes you wonder where all of our tax money goes.

you keep posting this...

it aint true...

please notice that welfare consumes almost
17% of the federal budget...

please note that this EXCLUDES medicaid and social security...

(1393)
APPENDIX K. SPENDING FOR INCOME-TESTED
BENEFITS, FISCAL YEARS 1968–98
CONTENTS
Overview
Participation in Income-Tested Programs
Trends in Spending
Spending Trends by Level of Government
Federal Government
State and Local Governments
Total Spending
Share of Federal Budget Used for Income-Tested Benefits
List of Income-Tested Programs
Medical Aid
Cash Aid
Food Aid
Housing Aid
Education Aid
Other Services
Jobs and Training Aid
Energy Aid
References
OVERVIEW
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has found that almost
80 benefit programs (the programs are listed at the end of this
chapter) provide cash and noncash aid that is directed primarily to
persons with limited income (Burke, 1999). Such programs constitute the public ‘‘welfare’’ system, if welfare is defined as income tested or needs-based benefits. This definition excludes social insurance programs, such as Social Security and Medicare.
These income-tested benefit programs in fiscal year 1998 cost
$391.7 billion: $277.3 billion in Federal funds and $114.3 billion in
State and local funds. Total welfare spending rose by 3.1 percent
from its fiscal year 1997 level. Higher medical spending accounted
for $10.3 billion of the year’s net increase of $11.8 billion and, for
the first time, medical benefits accounted for half of all income tested spending. Expressed in constant fiscal year 1998 dollars,
total welfare spending increased by $5.8 billion (1.5 percent); medical benefits increased by $7.4 billion (3.9 percent); services by $0.6 billion (5.4 percent); education by $0.3 billion (1.8 percent); and housing by $0.2 billion (0.6 percent). In real terms, cash benefit outlays held steady, but spending for food aid, jobs and training, and energy assistance declined. Welfare consumed the same share of the Federal budget (16.8 percent) as in fiscal year 1997, but accounted for a slightly smaller share of gross domestic product (4.6 percent compared to 4.7 percent in 1997).
In fiscal year 1998, medical services represented 50.1 percent of
total welfare spending; cash benefits, 24.1 percent; food and housing benefits, 16.6 percent. Services, energy aid, education, and jobs and training accounted for the remainder. The composition of welfare spending differed by level of government. Medical aid consumed 72 percent of State and local welfare funds, but only 41 percent of Federal welfare dollars.
Most income-tested programs provide benefits in the form of
cash, goods, or services, to persons who make no payment and
render no service in return. However, in the case of the job and
training programs and some educational benefits, recipients must
work or study. Further, the block grant program of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) requires adults to start work
after a period of enrollment, the Food Stamp Program imposes
work and training requirements, and public housing requires residents to engage in self-sufficiency activities or perform community service. Finally, the earned income credit (EIC) is available only to workers.


-clears throat-

OWNED!!!
 
2Thick said:
Welfare as people talk about it is the money given every month to families. That is 1%.


does that 1% include housing subsidies,....projects, sec 8, H.U.D.? because that is also included in the term "welfare" when people speak about it.
 
2Thick said:
Welfare as people talk about it is the money given every month to families. That is 1%.

The other garbage you talk about are not what people talk about on this board when they say "welfare."

Nice try, but I am a little better at semantics than you think.


never said you werent good at word games...

i am curious as to how you know what other
people on this board are thinking when they
refer to welfare???:D
 
In fiscal year 1998, medical services represented 50.1 percent of
total welfare spending; cash benefits, 24.1 percent;



24.1% of 17% of total budget===

4.08% of the TOTAL federal budget
given in DIRECT CASH PAYMENTS to
welfare recipients...

:D
 
2Thick said:


I am sure that is what you meant.

im not sure if thats sarcasm or not, im simply asking if that includes housing.

if a person speaks about welfare i would only assume that they are thinking the monthly check and housing. im sure you have seen projects before, would you think that the tenants pay full rent?
 
bwood8168 said:
In fiscal year 1998, medical services represented 50.1 percent of
total welfare spending; cash benefits, 24.1 percent;



24.1% of 17% of total budget===

4.08% of the TOTAL federal budget
given in DIRECT CASH PAYMENTS to
welfare recipients...

:D

Okay, so it is ~4%, but there are taxes and administrative charges taken out by the state and other bodies...so it is ~1% that actually reaches the people.
 
Who gives a fuck how much it is?

If it is one penny out of my pocket, then it is too damn much!
 
spongebob said:


im not sure if thats sarcasm or not, im simply asking if that includes housing.

if a person speaks about welfare i would only assume that they are thinking the monthly check and housing. im sure you have seen projects before, would you think that the tenants pay full rent?

Housing that is subsidized is not welfare. It is necessary to the proper running of the state. If those people did not find housing, they would live on the streets and would not be able to put money back into the economy. The government has subsidized housing for itself, therefore it is not welfare.
 
2Thick said:


Okay, so it is ~4%, but there are taxes and administrative charges taken out by the state and other bodies...so it is ~1% that actually reaches the people.


and you get this figure from where???

ms cleo aint a citeable reference...:D
 
BangedUp said:
Who gives a fuck how much it is?

If it is one penny out of my pocket, then it is too damn much!

If that welfare check was not given to those people, you have to spend that money building a huge electric fence to keep out those bands of poor folk roaming the streets looking for someone to rob for some food.
 
2Thick said:


Housing that is subsidized is not welfare. It is necessary to the proper running of the state. If those people did not find housing, they would live on the streets and would not be able to put money back into the economy. The government has subsidized housing for itself, therefore it is not welfare.

They are not putting THEIR money into the economy anyway. They are just putting MY money back into the system. Most of these scum back goods and services with welfare checks and food stamps not money made from actually working.
 
2Thick said:


If that welfare check was not given to those people, you have to spend that money building a huge electric fence to keep out those bands of poor folk roaming the streets looking for someone to rob for some food.

I have a gun or two.

I will be just fine.
 
2Thick said:


If that welfare check was not given to those people, you have to spend that money building a huge electric fence to keep out those bands of poor folk roaming the streets looking for someone to rob for some food.

that aint true, unless the liberals
succeed in taking all our guns...

look, a bum in my carrot patch!!!

pow...instant fertilizer!!!

who says i aint eco friendly???



btw, i dont remember a huge increase
in crime during the great depression???

according to your logic, there should have been one...
 
BangedUp said:


They are not putting THEIR money into the economy anyway. They are just putting MY money back into the system. Most of these scum back goods and services with welfare checks and food stamps not money made from actually working.

Whenever money is circulated it is good for the economy.

The strength of the economy is not how much money is circulated, it is how many times over the same dollar is used within a given time period. That is basic advanced econ.

And since you know those "scum" do not save their money, so it is good for the economy.
 
bwood8168 said:


that aint true, unless the liberals
succeed in taking all our guns...

look, a bum in my carrot patch!!!

pow...instant fertilizer!!!

who says i aint eco friendly???



btw, i dont remember a huge increase
in crime during the great depression???

according to your logic, there should have been one...

In that case, the US was very ANTI-UNION (a.k.a anti-communism). Therefore, individualism was very highly valued and the failure of the economy was seen as a personal failure and not one of the rich fucking over the poor. Now the times have changed.
 
2Thick said:


Whenever money is circulated it is good for the economy.

The strength of the economy is not how much money is circulated, it is how many times over the same dollar is used within a given time period. That is basic advanced econ.

And since you know those "scum" do not save their money, so it is good for the economy.


i would never call you a liar bro???

by the by...i seem to remember doing some
research about this subject...

are you implying that money circulated
by drug traffickers is good for the economy???

therefore, money to crackheads makes the
economy stronger for me???




:confused:
 
2Thick said:


Whenever money is circulated it is good for the economy.

The strength of the economy is not how much money is circulated, it is how many times over the same dollar is used within a given time period. That is basic advanced econ.

And since you know those "scum" do not save their money, so it is good for the economy.

I just wanted to make sure. It's been awhile since I last took economic classes. What about underground activites? Millions (or billions?) of dollars goes in underground activites and never are reported by Government.

Oh, basic advanced econ? I didn't realize advanced is basic and basic is advanced. Coolness...
 
bwood 8168 yes i have only 30 some posts but i have been here w/ hubby for over 2 1/2 years. as usual you dont have your facts. you ignorant dip shit.
 
Ms knight said:
bwood 8168 yes i have only 30 some posts but i have been here w/ hubby for over 2 1/2 years. as usual you dont have your facts. you ignorant dip shit.


thank you...
 
Ms knight said:
bwood 8168 yes i have only 30 some posts but i have been here w/ hubby for over 2 1/2 years. as usual you dont have your facts. you ignorant dip shit.

This coming from a lady who likes to have her three holes filled at the same time?
 
2Thick said:


In that case, the US was very ANTI-UNION (a.k.a anti-communism). Therefore, individualism was very highly valued and the failure of the economy was seen as a personal failure and not one of the rich fucking over the poor. Now the times have changed.

Yes, times have changed. The majority of people have a "I am a victim" attitude and think everything should be handed to them for free. Times have not changed for the better and they will only continue to get worse.
 
bwood8168 said:



i would never call you a liar bro???

by the by...i seem to remember doing some
research about this subject...

are you implying that money circulated
by drug traffickers is good for the economy???

therefore, money to crackheads makes the
economy stronger for me???




:confused:

Money that is spent at local businesses is good for them.

Just because the government does not get its grubby hands on tax dollars does not mean that it is not good for the economy.
 
2Thick said:


I am sure you will be fine. Except you might want to get a lot of bullets. Since the number of poor will be VERY high.

I have plenty of bullets and it would only take one to rid the world of these useless fucks.
 
BangedUp said:


Yes, times have changed. The majority of people have a "I am a victim" attitude and think everything should be handed to them for free. Times have not changed for the better and they will only continue to get worse.

I totally agree. The idea of personal responsibility for their actions has been thrown out of the window.

That, along with the greed of the corporations, will be the downfall of the country.
 
2Thick said:


Money that is spent at local businesses is good for them.

Just because the government does not get its grubby hands on tax dollars does not mean that it is not good for the economy.

how can the govt. have grubby hands
when those are the hands that direct
these precious welfare dollars that
you love so much???
 
2Thick said:


Money that is spent at local businesses is good for them.

Just because the government does not get its grubby hands on tax dollars does not mean that it is not good for the economy.

Well, I would rather spend my own money MORE often than have these people spend it for me.

Getting rid of welfare would not hurt the economy, nor would their be millions of homeless people walking around the US. This logic of playing on emotions does not work with most people as you wish it would. These people would either get help by local charities, find a fucking job or three, or just die. It is their choice, I couldn't care less what they decide to do.
 
2Thick said:


I totally agree. The idea of personal responsibility for their actions has been thrown out of the window.

That, along with the greed of the corporations, will be the downfall of the country.

Agreed!
 
2Thick said:


Housing that is subsidized is not welfare. It is necessary to the proper running of the state. If those people did not find housing, they would live on the streets and would not be able to put money back into the economy. The government has subsidized housing for itself, therefore it is not welfare.

hey im with you on the welfare thing, it is not only neccessary for the compassionate reason but also because we do not want the crime rate even higher.

but you have to be kidding me with this counter on housing is not welfare, right? if your not, then i dont want to ever hear the words "corporate welfare" out of you again. im sure you understand my point.

first, if you believe that housing is not thought of as welfare by the general public, then you are a little off bro.

secondly, the same arguement could be said of foodstamps, your logic, if the govt. didnt feed these people then they would starve and not be able to put money back into the economy, therefore it is not welfare, it is a govt subsidy for its own benefit.
 
lets see if any of u can understand this !!!!!!Can Child Support Agencies ever work?
It depends on what you mean by "work"! What are they for? (This is not always the same as what people think they are for or are told they are for!)

Ensuring that children are supported by their parents instead of by taxpayers
This is a classic reason, with typical questions such as "why should taxpayers pay for other people's children?" It applies more in some countries than others, depending on the extent to which the society feels that children are an individual responsibility or more of a social responsibility.

The UK is somewhere in between the USA, with its emphasis on individual responsibility, and some European countries, with more of a view that society has a large part to play. (And some countries see the family as a whole having a significant part to play). The more the parents have individual responsibility to pay, the higher the liability is likely to be, and the more parents there will be who simply can't afford to pay "their share".

And, of course, taxpayers do pay for other people's children! Apart from paying for the infrastructure (schools, etc), in the UK the state (taxpayers) pay Child Benefit, a universal benefit which even rich parents can claim. A response to the knee-jerk question "why should taxpayers pay for other people's children?" is "well, you've been doing so for years without too many complaints, so why stop now?"

In the UK's reformed scheme, perhaps three-quarters of NRPs won't earn enough for the formula to cause them pay half the regular payments for a single child. (That isn't saying they couldn't pay, but the force needed, with penalties and backlash, makes this impractical, or at least unwise politically). An even smaller proportion will earn enough to pay their share of 2 or more children.

However obvious this purpose is, it is not the only reason, and actually probably only has a minor part to play in the UK. The government will encourage people to take this attitude when it suits them, and will then simply give away lots of taxpayers' money for other people's children when it suits them to do that instead! For example, when Working Families Tax Credit replaced Family Credit, the government stopped trying to reduce the Treasury's bill (now the tax credit bill rather than the social security bill, but so what?) And the answer to "can the child support system achieve this?" is "rarely".
 
BangedUp said:


Well, I would rather spend my own money MORE often than have these people spend it for me.

Getting rid of welfare would not hurt the economy, nor would their be millions of homeless people walking around the US. This logic of playing on emotions does not work with most people as you wish it would. These people would either get help by local charities, find a fucking job or three, or just die. It is their choice, I couldn't care less what they decide to do.

Most people on welfare are single mothers.

How is she supposed to get a job when she has to take care of the children and affordable childcare is nowhere to be found?
 
2Thick said:


Most people on welfare are single mothers.

How is she supposed to get a job when she has to take care of the children and affordable childcare is nowhere to be found?

i can answer this graphically, kinda...


this first one is how welfare affects young women (I=legs)

I.................................... I

notice how far apart the legs are...

this second one is when there is no welfare to compensate
poor decision making:


II

notice how close together the legs are...

hope this helps...:D
 
2Thick said:


Most people on welfare are single mothers.

How is she supposed to get a job when she has to take care of the children and affordable childcare is nowhere to be found?

Maybe she should have took a little responsibility and not got pregnant in the first place if she knew the child couldn't be reasonable taken care of without welfare.

She can either find a job that offers childcare help or find someone to take care of the child while she works.

The problem is these people are nothing more than slaves of the state. Most will never get off welfare. As long as the money is handed over like candy, these people simply have no incentive to get off the program and progress with their lives. Most likely, their children will be breed as a welfare slave who will also take after their mother of relying on welfare for their entire life,

This is not a good situation and I simply do not trust the government to hand out my money to these people. I would much rather have more money in my pocket to give to local charities. At least this way I have choice in the matter and can see exactly where my money is going (in most cases).
 
why do people bitch about stuff, unless they plan on trying to change it? It's election time boys, vote, maybe you can make a difference.
 
I was going to vote but i figured the white man will still win , so i,l worry about it in about 20 years after the minority gets a little further in their tactics.
 
Those of you educated in Economics will be familiar with the Philips Curve, which is the putative relationship between inflation and employment. That's why Greenspan used to squeeze the money supply periodically when the labour statistics indicated a fall in the numbers claiming unemployment a couple of years ago, before Bush croaked the economy. There's a certain amount of dead wood built into the system. Full employment to Greenspan was a bad thing, the fact that some people at the bottom of the chain were getting more money would eventually dilute the dollar of richer folk up the trough. So interest rates would be raised to head off inflation. Apparently 4% of the workforce on welfare is a good thing, they are taking one for the team.

BTW American welfare is like the stingiest in the western world, if I ever decide to be a welfare bum, I'm moving to Denmark.
 
Doktor Bollix said:
Those of you educated in Economics will be familiar with the Philips Curve, which is the putative relationship between inflation and employment.

That is one theory and it does not hold true is all situations (at best). But, this is not a place for such discussions.
BTW American welfare is like the stingiest in the western world, if I ever decide to be a welfare bum, I'm moving to Denmark.

Very true, but since politicians like to make non-issues into huge issues (to distract the masses) it is seen as a problem.
 
2Thick said:


That is one theory and it does not hold true is all situations (at best). But, this is not a place for such discussions.


Fair enough, my point was that Greenspan commented on the tightness of the labor market and inflation many times and raised interest rates several times using that as a justification. Full employment is a no no (apparently).

What I think is funny about these threads is suburban clone kids who live out of their parents pockets flail about looking for someone they can feel superior too and you won't let them.
 
Doktor Bollix said:


Fair enough, my point was that Greenspan commented on the tightness of the labor market and inflation many times and raised interest rates several times using that as a justification. Full employment is a no no (apparently).

Well, according to some models full employment is bad because it prematurely causes inflation and prices to rise.
What I think is funny about these threads is suburban clone kids who live out of their parents pockets flail about looking for someone they can feel superior too and you won't let them.

LOL...:p
 
Doktor Bollix said:


Fair enough, my point was that Greenspan commented on the tightness of the labor market and inflation many times and raised interest rates several times using that as a justification. Full employment is a no no (apparently).

What I think is funny about these threads is suburban clone kids who live out of their parents pockets flail about looking for someone they can feel superior too and you won't let them.

do you honestly think greenspan has that
much of an impact by just changing the
rate on money that banks can borrow???

consumer confidence is what the whole
enchilada runs on...

and yes, you can have more liberal welfare
policies when the usa is protecting the free
world on its own nickel and you are a
benefitting country that is well known for???

wait, im wrong, denmark just launched a
shuttle didnt they??? no, i mean theyre
leading in cancer research, woops, wrong
again, they are so close to solving the problem
of cold fusion...rats...i know they contribute
somehow other than feeding parasites...

thanks for protecting us from that scary
philips curve...spooky...:D
 
2Thick said:


I do not trust the government, but cutting off help to single mothers and their innocent children is not the way to get a minority of scammers.

How about single poor mothers that have 4 or more children? I don't propose that we stop helping those that are already here. But let's put a stop to these useless people having children and me and you having to pay for it. There needs to be some type of severe punishment to discourage these people from reproducing like cockroaches. Maybe forced sterility. I say fuck em. People starve everyday in Africa and nobody gives a shit enough to stop it. You can't help all of the ignorant people in the world without sacrificing your own well being.
 
I have a plan. I'm a single father and I can barely take care of myself and my daughter. I wouldn't even consider having another child with anyone unless my standard of living improved significantly. That's because I am responsible. But hey, fuck it, since so many of you don't care, I think I'm gonna get with someone and have a bunch of young ens' so I can collect welfare and maybe not have to work.
 
Top Bottom