As I said before there are welfare cheats as well as those who have legitimate needs. What I have tried to say, probably ineloquently, is that it is not only welfare recipients who bleed the economy, but many (not all, probably not most) wealthy people too. To demonize all the poor as lazy and taking advantage of the system is simply unfair and mean spirited.

Good points Tal. My wife has volunteered two days a week for almost ten years at a local charity thrift store and a food pantry. She has gotten to know many of the recipients and their stories, and many would break your heart. She watches for childrens clothing to come in and she brings it home to wash, then takes it back and sets it aside for impoverished children whom it will fit. She is not a saint, and gets back as much as she gives, but don't tell her that all, or even most, welfare cases are lazy no-accounts.

I agree!
 

I agree! :agree:

loopholes?
 

What is a TAX LOOPHOLE? Either it is part of the tax law or it s not. Perhas it is a loophole only because you and I do not qualify to deduct it and someone else can? In that case perhaps my mortgage interest deduction can be considered a LOOPHOLE by someone who does not own a home.

Well, I would not consider that a loophole -- for you, but perhaps for people who own 5 or 6 multi-million dollar properties, on which they carry mortgages, not because they need to, but because they want the tax deductions, I might. How about the tax break included in the 2008 farm bill, which allows accelerated, three-year depreciation for racehorses, which are all owned by multi-millionaires? I might consider that a loophole.

The bottom line is that a person who does not pay taxes pays nothing. A typical person pays about 25%.

A person with a huge salary pays, for sake of argument..10%

So if a person is earning 250K a year, he will be paying a lot of taxes.

A person earning 50K a year not as much. but a lot to him.

A person who doesn't work, pays nothing.

Now...not all people on welfare are losers and not all people who make a lot of money are losers either.

I am ABSOLUTELY in agreement with your last statement and did not mean to imply otherwise.

I don't want to take this in the direction of tax rates and fairness, because that is a long discussion for another forum (which does not exist on TOTV any longer). I was trying to make a fairness distinction for those who would seemingly demonize all welfare and food stamp recipients. There is at least an equal argument that far more money is wasted in questionable tax benefits to the wealthy than is spent on welfare in general, and welfare fraud in particular. There are a lot of tax frauds among wealthy people as there are many who job the welfare system, not that either is morally right. But, I find multi-millionaires who defraud the medicare and medicaid system for millions of dollars for example, to be a level up in moral degredation from some person in subsidized housing who refuses to work.

The topic from the OP was Booker was going to live on food stamps for a week. IMHO its one of those populists stunts politicians like to play. Booker needs to lost the weight anyway..

As to the food stamps program the bigger issue isn't who or who isn't entitled but rather should the program be permanent for a receipient?
In otherwords should we be giving people a permanent hand out or a temporary hand up?

In my view it is immoral to allow people to become slaves to entitlement....and yes I know there are some folks out there that need help. This may sound callous by some but the problem with Americans todays is that they emote too much and ignore critical and rationale thinking. So we need to get a grip. Like many of you who responded I have been fiercely independent and never accepted a handout even when it was tempting. Unfortunately if you research the stats that mentality is no longer in a majority

To illustrate how ridiculous we have become a journalist wrote an article sometime ago about helicopter parents. This morning she wrote about helicopter pet owners. One of her comments was that it use to be that dogs guarded people but today people are advised to guard dogs against risks even if there fenced it. Ugh!

Back to the topic of the thread. I see this as little more than grandstanding. As pointed out earlier, food stamps are not intended to be the sole source of nutrition for recipients. Rather, they augment the funds already received through work or other social programs. There is no valid conclusion to be reached by this act. If the mayor shows the difficulty in living on only food stamps, my response would be "So what else did you expect?". That is not their intent.

[QUOTE=rubicon;588965]The topic from the OP was Booker was going to live on food stamps for a week. IMHO its one of those populists stunts politicians like to play. Booker needs to lost the weight anyway..
QUOTE]

Clearly, it is a stunt and I suspect Booker would admit as much. The shot at his weight is rather cheap however.

People living on food stamps are often inadquately nourished. Meals tend to be high on carbs and fat and very lean (no pun intended) on protein, fruits and vegetables, which are not readily available in the bodegas of many neighborhoods were food stamp usage is great. The challenge of food stamps is to make a nutritious and filling meal. It is possible that the stamps become the main focus of meal planning because the cash is spent on items such as soap, toiletries, toilet paper, etc. I'm not interested in posts that I know will state that people eat crappy stuff. I will not sit in judgment of others in this regard. The intent is well grounded, and many, many struggle to provide meals with almost nothing. Food stamps may be found in neighborhoods you'd least expect. Many years ago, one of my sisters was on food stamps...her husband worked minimum wage at the time, they had 2 kids, she worked, also, and lived on Long Island, one of the most expensive places in the country. I helped her, as did my parents. She was so embarassed she shopped in different neighborhoods so no one would know. Things turned around for them, and everything turned out OK in the end, but I determined at that point not to judge. There but for the grace of God...

[QUOTE=applesoffh;588985]People living on food stamps are often inadquately nourished. Meals tend to be high on carbs and fat and very lean (no pun intended) on protein, fruits and vegetables, which are not readily available in the bodegas of many neighborhoods were food stamp usage is great. The challenge of food stamps is to make a nutritious and filling meal. It is possible that the stamps become the main focus of meal planning because the cash is spent on items such as soap, toiletries, toilet paper, etc. I'm not interested in posts that I know will state that people eat crappy stuff. I will not sit in judgment of others in this regard. The intent is well grounded, and many, many struggle to provide meals with almost nothing. Food stamps may be found in neighborhoods you'd least expect. Many years ago, one of my sisters was on food stamps...her husband worked minimum wage at the time, they had 2 kids, she worked, also, and lived on Long Island, one of the most expensive places in the country. I helped her, as did my parents. She was so embarassed she shopped in different neighborhoods so no one would know. Things turned around for them, and everything turned out OK in the end, but I determined at that point not to judge. There but for the grace of God...[/QUOTE]

From your keyboard to God's ears!

I agree. There are many people that cheat the system but there are many, many more that have legitimate needs. My granddaughter just turned 18 in September, a month before her daughters first birthday. Should she have gotten pregnant?? Of course not!! I have the feeling that a lot of people reading this forum had pregnancies that weren't at the most convenient time. She went to social services for assistance and was told that she would be given food stamps and medicaid but if she wanted money she would have to work for it. They provided a job for her and are helping with child care costs. Is she using tax payers money? Yes. Is she learning skills? Yes. Is she learning responsibility? Yes! Is she doing the best she can to take care of the beautiful child she brought into the world? You bet. I am very proud of how she is handling this and very grateful to the State of Michigan for helping her but not enabling her. Now is she brings another child into this...I will personally kick her butt!

eweissenbach :beer3::BigApplause::bigbow:

I have read all the post on this thread very carefully and Iweissenbach, You have my vote for correctness, and the most humane of them all. I salute you.

All the best to your grandchild and her child. Assistance is supposed to be just that - a hand up not a hand out.