Obama as "the most successful food stamp president in modern American history."

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,284
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
258
Age
70
Location
Capitola CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
i work with part time employees in my classroom who depend on food stamps . they are divorced moms with kids. NEWT has no moral concept of what is just or fair. He is devoted to hypocrisy and self promotion.
Again, he is the perfect GOP candidate for president . A TOTAL FATASS FOOL !!!!
 

parr

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Posts
433
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
51
Age
71
Location
Florida
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Well then, the answer is obvious. We should immediately revoke your ex girlfriend's $41 in food stamps and cancel her ability to receive $700 in SSD. That will take care of all the problems.

That was clever.:biggrin1:
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
TECHNICALLY unemployed good sir. If I were truly unemployed, then I would not be paying taxes.

Not necessarily. If you were not working and collecting unemployment insurance, you would be paying taxes on it. Back in 2003 during the dot-com crisis I was collecting and was "technically unemployed" so I know this as a fact.
 

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Lets put it this way

a women who makes 12.5k a year with 3 kids ends up needing food stamps to get by on food the only sustainable way to tax her income would be to raise it or take away her kids. both options present problems one a idealogical no no for conservatives(minimum wage) and the other would cost the state more than the tax revenue it would receive, not to mention the effect on the kids and the mother.

And that would be the type of person that should have access to government aid. Maybe she could (and probably should) have had less kids, but that is inconsequential to your point. The example you raise is absolutely valid, but I truly believe that many people accepting government aid are not like this hypothetical woman.

I know it's far off topic, but I 100% believe people should be more responsible when it comes to having children. I take in more than your hypothetical woman, and the thought of having children is nowhere in my mind. I would be unable to give them the life they deserve. If this woman were more responsible in with having kids, the latter point you raised would be unnecessary, no? Once again, sorry for the way off-topic opinion.
 

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Haha! There is a definite libertarian streak in the Pacific Northwest. But I am still fairly "progressive" on many social issues, as are most Washingtonians.

I am still perplex as to why some in the US seem so enamored with a Fat Government model when it is clearly not yielding very good results in the EU, and is not even keeping social unrest at bay there.

Yeah, I mean, in a perfect world, everyone would be a Libertarian. Give everyone all the help they need, and not be forced to have major government interference. That's a perfect world, and this world is far from perfect. Thus the reason, I'm a conservative.
 

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Not necessarily. If you were not working and collecting unemployment insurance, you would be paying taxes on it. Back in 2003 during the dot-com crisis I was collecting and was "technically unemployed" so I know this as a fact.

Like I said, I would not be paying taxes. I don't collect unemployment. As I said, I'm TECHNICALLY unemployed...
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Like I said, I would not be paying taxes. I don't collect unemployment. As I said, I'm TECHNICALLY unemployed...

Whatever. Arguing over what one would constitute as being "technically unemployed" is irrelevant. The fact that you've said this three times already to describe your current financial and employment doesn't change any of the facts already made in this thread.
 

itsthepopei

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Posts
486
Media
9
Likes
1,201
Points
273
Location
Atlanta
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
And that would be the type of person that should have access to government aid. Maybe she could (and probably should) have had less kids, but that is inconsequential to your point. The example you raise is absolutely valid, but I truly believe that many people accepting government aid are not like this hypothetical woman.

I know it's far off topic, but I 100% believe people should be more responsible when it comes to having children. I take in more than your hypothetical woman, and the thought of having children is nowhere in my mind. I would be unable to give them the life they deserve. If this woman were more responsible in with having kids, the latter point you raised would be unnecessary, no? Once again, sorry for the way off-topic opinion.

That would be where the disconnect comes in. The majority of people who don't pay taxes are exempt because they don't earn enough for the tax money to be profitable for the government. By taking money away from those households the government then has to put money back into them to make them viable. ad into this the fact that 47.39% of households make less than 25k a year and the reasoning behind not taxing the working poor (with families) becomes evident.
 
D

deleted213967

Guest
ad into this the fact that 47.39% of households make less than 25k a year and the reasoning behind not taxing the working poor (with families) becomes evident.

Here Is Your Problem!©: Economic Illiteracy.

The US Census Bureau (which is not owned by oh-so-evil Fox News) begs to differ:

For 2009, the latest year available, the median US household income was:

USD 49,777.

...or almost twice the number you reported.

But yes, indeed, we're all poor compared to the Sultan of Brunei. Why don't we let him pay the whole world's taxes. :rolleyes:





 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
itsthepopei said:
ad into this the fact that 47.39% of households make less than 25k a year and the reasoning behind not taxing the working poor (with families) becomes evident.

Domisoldo said:
Here Is Your Problem!: Economic Illiteracy.

First off, it's very possible that itsthepopei got his statistics from a chart on Wikipedia regarding individual incomes that was formulated using US Census Bureau data from 2008. So apparently both of you are using the same sources (which are not owned by oh-so-evil Fox News). Personal income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, the median US income represents an average. Let's look at a complete breakdown of household incomes from a different set of census data. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

According to a chart representing median incomes of 2003 when the median income of US households was $45,018 per annum, 28.22% of people who reported made less than $25K. Another 26.65% of people made $25K to $50K. By the time you get to the median of that year, you see that nearly 48.38% of families make less than that. On top of this, the median household incomes of this country have dropped since reaching a peak in 2008. In the year you sourced, it was actually down from the $50,303 reported in this article and from $52,029 as reported by the US Census - USA QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

So in a way, you kinda owe itsthepopei an apology here for claiming that he's illiterate... but I don't think anyone here (including itsthepoppei) will hold their breath. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Here Is Your Problem!©: Economic Illiteracy.

The US Census Bureau (which is not owned by oh-so-evil Fox News) begs to differ:

For 2009, the latest year available, the median US household income was:

USD 49,777.

...or almost twice the number you reported.

But yes, indeed, we're all poor compared to the Sultan of Brunei. Why don't we let him pay the whole world's taxes. :rolleyes:




Speaking of illiteracy, you might want to familiarize yourself with the difference between mean (average) and median.
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
174
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
All I can say is the modest profit my LLCs in Elko, NV, pulled in this year were far above what Obama considers "the rich" and the profits were used to give bonuses and NOT create new jobs. There's a certain balance that naturally occurs with a small business. Just because we had a banner year at the bar/restaurant doesn't mean we are in a position to hire more staff.

But it was nice to see the waitresses and shared management of one LLC pull their resources together so they could send their often-out-of-work husbands on errands to Twin Falls and pick up new refrigerators, washers, dryers, and dishwashers. They even negotiated bulk pricing once they'd all agreed the makes and models they could all live with. Yet another reason (I'm told) to shop at Loews instead of Home Depot.

And what does this post have to do with food stamps? Everyone of my employees depended upon food stamps at least one, if not more times in their lives, to keep their families in Hamburger Helper.
 
Last edited:

itsthepopei

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Posts
486
Media
9
Likes
1,201
Points
273
Location
Atlanta
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
two people look at the same data and come up with two differing conclusions one of us may want to check our mathematical literacy so i found a link that may be useful in illuminating Domisoldo's ignorance.

Finding the average

now based on that if families a,b,c,and d made 12k and family E makes 150k they all make an average income of 39.6k as you can see from this grossly simplified version the income gap distorts the per capita reporting leveraging the numbers well above real world numbers.
 
D

deleted213967

Guest
Speaking of illiteracy, you might want to familiarize yourself with the difference between mean (average) and median.

I am so delighted that you may have received credit for your introductory course on statistics from your friendly local community college.

I reported exactly what the US Census Bureau reported: the median US household income.

The average is indeed higher.

I am sorry that you're not entitled to your own facts.


 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
By dictionary definition, the terms median and mean are synonymous with the word average. HOWEVER, and this is what Domisoldo doesn't know (or doesn't care to enlighten himself with) is that under the rules of mathematics they are two entirely different things.

The median is the middle value in a range of values arranged in sequence by size. To provide an example, to find the median of the following numbers - 1, 46, 21, 2030, 500, 67, 275 - you put them in numerical order and the one in the middle becomes the median: 1, 21, 46, 67, 275, 500, 2030. The answer in this case is 67.

The mean (or average) is determined by adding up all the numbers and dividing by the number of numbers. So if we took those same numbers, added them up and divided by seven, you'd come up with the answer of 420.

So under the rules of mathematics, the median value is not always equal to the mean. Regardless of the amount of numbers in a sequence and their values, when going by the median figure the middle number is always selected. Therefore, it's quite possible for the median number to be much less (or much higher) than other numbers in a sequence, as in the example I provided. If we put together all of the data provided by Domisoldo and itsthepopei and applied mathematical rule to it, the median US household income may be "in the middle" but is not the official average since the same census data also states that more than 47% of households make less than 25K. The only way we can find the actual average of household incomes, we'd have to total up the sum of incomes from over 136 million taxpayers and do the long division. Obviously, nobody here, Domisoldo or even the U.S. Census Bureau is going to do that. So they instead have used the median as a place holder and a benchmark to start figuring their numbers & percentages.

Being this is grade school academics, anyone knowing the facts would be able to figure this out. And in an issue where we have ill-informed people who want to put out distorted talking points about "half of Americans not paying taxes", one needs to go beyond the dictionary definitions of certain words and start doing the math. I know Domisoldo hates me now and has me on ignore because he can't deal with my so-called evilness, but someone needs to inform him that he should learn how to check his figures with a calculator and not his pseudo-Libertarian political beliefs. Last time I checked, that piece of hardware didn't have an equal sign on it. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited: