The Goat Pen

Which means that your statement that women NEVER had it before the Great Society was WRONG! Thanks for the proof.

"You do it by providing an economy and job market that voluntarily removes them from W.I.C. (or any other income security program). And the plus side of that is you now have tax payers contributing into the system."

Good luck with that Ecat. I agree with most everything you say. However, there is LITTLE motivation for someone to get off the government tit to work unless the numbers make sense. So someone who has a high school diploma but has 2 kids under the age of 30, why the fuck would she work any job factory or retail where she may or may not get benefits and lose her food stamps, housing assistance, education assistance, and other benefits?

Speaking from experience due to my wife's family:

600 / month in food stamps
600 / month in rent assistance
Medicaid - basically free health insurance along with very cheap if not free medicine
She went to college for like 6 straight years just taking classes here and there for free

Where is the incentive for her to work at Wal-Mart where if she makes over 10k a year, she loses ALL those benefits???

NONE. And giving her a living wage of 12-15 / hour will not solve this issue either. If you don't think Wal-Mart, Kroger, Mac-Donalds, and all will not raise their prices due to increased wages, then people have lost their fucking minds because they really sank those profits back into the company of stripping away health care from workers when they knocked everyone down to part-time status so they weren't obligated to offer them benefits.

Truth be told and I know I have talked about it before, that I really want my wife to divorce me on paper in the eyes of the government because we could have those exact same benefits I mentioned above (except for housing) and be a lot better off. She would qualify for food stamps, free education, and free insurance for her and my daughter. I would save money by keeping my own insurance through my work and my "support payments" would go from my check into her "savings" account. I would use a PO Box or a friend/family member address to get mail and such. She won't do it because she doesn't want to cheat the system. I can just imagine the money back in my pocket each week and what impact does it have on my life? Filling out my taxes at the end of the year would be different but other than that, I can't really think of anything. My life insurance I can assign anyone to receive the money. Living will pretty much the same way.

well, you just told on yourself on the internet...so, there's that scheme blown to bits.

It's not a scheme if the system allows for it. Everything BRM said is within the rules of the system. It's basically just choosing to play by the rules they set. If anybody thinks it's "wrong" to do that, then change the rules...

Exactly Hedge. We can still live together as long as she doesn't get housing assistance. For the other stuff like education and food stamps, they could care less.

Oh, I thought you couldn't live together for any of those benefits. So, it's not household income, it's the tax status?

He can list her as "foundling"...

It depends on the benefits. Housing, absolutely not. However, they will factor in alimony and child support. They are going to be very resistant with a father who has income. The amount of child support will frequently prevent the qualification.

Poorest Cities in U.S.

http://homes.yahoo.com/news/the-poorest ... 35755.html

In the annual American Community Survey, the U.S. Census Bureau releases statistics on the population. Age, race, location, income — these and more are outlined in the report, and the 2012 survey, released this month, gave insight into the country’s wealth distribution.

Last year, the median U.S. household income was $51,371. To determine which areas have thehighest and lowest median incomes, we used the bureau’s American Fact Finder tool to sort the data of 2,120 metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas.

Much like the high-income areas, the low-income areas showed an interesting geographical makeup. Nine of the 10 lowest median incomes are found in the South, as it is defined by the Census Bureau.

Conversely, the high-income areas showed more geographical diversity. While half of the them are on the East Coast, including the cities surrounding Washington, the other five are in California, Hawaii and Alaska. The high-income areas reported a median income of more than $69,000 a year.

Meanwhile, the low-income areas don’t go above $32,860. Three of them are in North Carolina, two are in Texas and the only area outside the South is in New Mexico. Other states with cities on the list are Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia. Virginia is the only state to have cities on both ends of the median-income spectrum.

And as far as population goes, the high-income areas are generally larger than the low-income ones. The Census Bureau defines a metro area as containing a “core urban area of 50,000 or more population, and a micro area contains an urban core of at least 10,000 (but less than 50,000) population.”

Only one of the high-income areas is a micro area, and only two of the low-income areas are metro. Population didn’t directly correlate to the area’s rank in its list. For this list, we used the 2011 population estimates, as those are the most recent available for these areas.

10. Dalton, Ga.
• Population: 142,741
• Income: $32,858

9. Forest City, N.C.
• Population: 67,538
• Income: $32,836

8. Nacogdoches, Texas
• Population: 65,466
• Income: $32,555

7. Martinsville, Va.
• Population: 67,300
• Income: $32,196

6. Cookeville, Tenn.
• Population: 106,498
• Income: $31,813

5. Talladega-Sylacauga, Ala.
• Population: 81,664
• Income: $31,547

4. Brownsville-Harlingen, Texas
• Population: 414,123
• Income: $30,953

3. Roanoke Rapids, N.C.
• Population: 76,066
• Income:$29,930

2. Gallup, N.M.
• Population: 73,664
• Income: $29,696

1. Lumberton, N.C.
• Population: 135,517
• Income: $28,293

Well, one good thing about Obamacare, with a $6K max out of pocket annual cap, I could just go check myself into some swank non-aggressive rehab facility in Malibu for a year-long treatment and live the good life for a mere $6K. Probably meet some Hollywood types, weasel my way into the biz. Sounds like a plan...

Like it mattered in those days.

Bklyn wrote:Like it mattered in those days.

It did.

Still does.

Nope.

Bklyn wrote:Like it mattered in those days.

those days? Its 2006

Senator. Didn't matter.

Owlman wrote:Senator. Didn't matter.

yea, funny - isn't it those same guys he's railing against now?

I guess it doesn't matter with them?

I find it odd that he gets a waiver on his position as a Senator in 2006 - which means either he was full of shit then, or full or shit now.

Politicians that are full of shit? What is happening in this crazy world!?

aTm wrote:Politicians that are full of shit? What is happening in this crazy world!?

regardless, its a credibility issue with the president.

Do as I say, not as I do

Sorta like parents