We were talking to a girl who works and receives food stamps for her and her children. She just got a notice that as of Nov. 1st....her food stamps will be cut BACK by $52!!!
She works 40 hrs/week....in a low paying job. Doesn't own a car and takes a bus back and forth to work.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
We were talking to a girl who works and receives food stamps for her and her children. She just got a notice that as of Nov. 1st....her food stamps will be cut BACK by $52!!!
She works 40 hrs/week....in a low paying job. Doesn't own a car and takes a bus back and forth to work.
because they gave it to SS.....robing peter to pay paul.....it's a shell game......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
A lot of formerly middle class people are now qualifying for food stamps, they have to cut back to have enough to go around. Also cutting back on section 8. Think about it, the people who MUST buy insurance they don't want, but don't make enough money, just where did everybody think those "subsidies" to buy it were coming from? Basically, ACA punishes those who already had insurance, and those who didn't want insurance, and puts the entire cost of our overpriced health care on the middle class. It isn't going to fall apart by itself. You can't elect not to participate, or you will be punished. The only people who could have stopped it got bought off, like congressional employees and others who got waivers and exemptions. Hollywood types are out there pushing it, it doesn't affect them. Nobody is going to stand up and say, we were had, because they still think its a case of big bad Republicans not wanting poor people to be able to see a doctor.
AND WE'RE RATED HOW????? we are all about subsidizing ourselves....subsidizing is a slap in the face to us as individuals....
Quoted Text
The Republicans caved and agreed to restore the government and extend the debt ceiling for a number of good reasons. The Democrats and the president held firm, voters were angry with them, and Wall Street was worried that if America defaulted on its debt the world economy would collapse, as it did in 2008.
But there was no stronger pressure on GOP House members to buckle than the fear that independent credit agencies like Standard & Poor’s and Fitch were poised to downgrade America’s credit score.
Key to making such decisions is John Chambers, the global head of S&P’s sovereign ratings committee and a member of the team, which was led by colleague Nikola Swann, that marked down America’s debt rating in 2011, from AAA to AA+. This time, if the House Republicans had not blinked, Chambers was ready to cut the debt rating again.
“If the government does discontinue debt-servicing, unless it is cured immediately, it goes into ‘selective default’,”said Chambers, citing S&P sources close to the heated talks in Washington. Selective default is the lowest of S&P’s 20 grades of untrustworthiness. How many countries are currently in selective default? Only Grenada.
A source close to S&P indicated that until the last minute Wednesday, when a deal was stitched up in the Senate to reopen the government and delay the debt ceiling until February, the committee in charge of assessing the U.S. sovereign debt rating, headed by credit analyst Marie Cavanaugh, was ready to convene a meeting to lower America’s rating. Already Fitch, a ratings-agency competitor of S&P, announced it was putting the U.S. on “credit rating watch negative,” citing a lack of “timely” action by Congress to pass a budget.
Like a troubled teenager, America is repeatedly self-harming. “It is simply not a characteristic of the most highly rated sovereigns that you have to worry about them not paying their debts,” Chambers said, noting that no nation has ever defaulted for such a ridiculous reason – political games of mutually assured destruction. “It is unheard of in a cohesive civil society, making it all the more puzzling and lamentable that we have these shenanigans over spending that has already been approved by Congress.”
When Standard & Poor’s, which monitors and ranks the credit of 127 countries, slashed the sovereign debt rating of the United States during the 2011 debt-ceiling war, cries of “unpatriotic” and “anti-American” echoed up Wall Street (past the grave of Alexander Hamilton, first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and founder of the U.S. financial system; his tombstone, in Trinity Church graveyard, is now encircled by rat traps).
“We knew what we were doing, that it was a historic decision,” says Swann. “The volume of calls coming in was more than we could sort through on our own. We were there until late Friday, doing interviews, investor calls, and teleconferences, all through the weekend and the rest of the following week.” The hue and cry was no surprise. After all, nothing less than the world’s global reserve currency was at stake.
By losing its gold-star rating, America slipped below Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and Canada. It has remained there ever since, washing up alongside France, Austria and the Isle of Man. The world’s superpower is now second best.
Swann spent the rest of 2011 jetting between Toronto, his home base, and cities and conferences around the world trying to explain to those heavily invested in U.S. debt and currency why S&P decided to downgrade an otherwise prosperous superpower with a resilient financial system when no other ratings agency would stick its neck out and do the same. “The simple truth is, the U.S. was running one of the highest deficits the world has seen since World War II as a share of the [national] economy,” he says.
Some felt S&P had been rash; others believed it hadn’t downgraded the U.S. far enough. S&P is currently the only agency to cut the U.S. rating down to the second-highest slot, although overseas investors in U.S. debt, currency and equities have begun to take a dim view of the slowness of the other agencies to follow suit.
“It’s hard not to look at it and say the U.S. hasn’t been getting preferential treatment,” says one London hedge fund trader. “If this wasn’t the world’s superpower, there would not be a measured response. These ratings agencies would be going nuts right now.”
“The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective and less predictable than what we previously believed,” S&P stated to justify its lone decision in 2011. “The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.”
This week’s congressional game of chicken over the debt ceiling underscores how hand-to-mouth uncertainty is taking such a long-term toll not just on investors, but also on America’s optimism. Gallup this week reported investor confidence dropping to the lowest level in nearly two years, harking back to when S&P first sounded the financial alarm.
Swann said America’s repeated near-misses do not instill confidence in the markets that Congress will not at some future time vote to prevent America from repaying its debts. “There’s no question, our ratings are trying to predict chances of future default,” he said.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
WASHINGTON — House Republicans narrowly pushed through a bill on Thursday that slashes billions of dollars from the food stamp program, over the objections of Democrats and a veto threat from President Obama.
The bill passed narrowly despite efforts by the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, who spoke at a news conference on Thursday.
The vote set up what promised to be a major clash with the Senate and dashed hopes for passage this year of a new five-year farm bill.
The vote was 217 to 210, largely along party lines.
Republican leaders, under pressure from Tea Party-backed conservatives, said the bill was needed because the food stamp program, which costs nearly $80 billion a year, had grown out of control. They said the program had expanded even as jobless rates had declined with the easing recession.
“This bill eliminates loopholes, ensures work requirements, and puts us on a fiscally responsible path,” said Representative Marlin Stutzman, Republican of Indiana, who led efforts to split the food stamps program from the overall farm bill. “In the real world, we measure success by results. It’s time for Washington to measure success by how many families are lifted out of poverty and helped back on their feet, not by how much Washington bureaucrats spend year after year.”
But even with the cuts, the food stamp program would cost more than $700 billion over the next 10 years.
Republicans invoked former President Bill Clinton in their defense of the bill, saying that the changes were in the spirit of those that he signed into law in 1996 that set work requirements for those who receive welfare.
But Democrats, many of whom held up pictures of people they said would lose their benefits, called the cuts draconian and said they would plunge millions into poverty.
“It’s a sad day in the people’s House when the leadership brings to the floor one of the most heartless bills I have ever seen,” said Representative James McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts. “It’s terrible policy trapped in a terrible process.”
The measure has little chance of advancing in the Senate, and Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan and the chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, called it “a monumental waste of time.”
The bill, written under the direction of the House majority leader, Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, would cut $40 billion from the food stamp program over the next 10 years. It would also require adults between 18 and 50 without minor children to find a job or to enroll in a work-training program in order to receive benefits.
It would also limit the time those recipients could get benefits to three months. Currently, states can extend food stamp benefits past three months for able-bodied people who are working or preparing for work as part of a job-training program.
“This bill makes getting Americans back to work a priority again for our nation’s welfare programs,” House Speaker John A. Boehner said.
The bill would also restrict people enrolled in other social welfare programs from automatically becoming eligible for food stamps.
In addition, the legislation would allow states to require food stamp recipients to be tested for drugs and to stop lottery winners from getting benefits. The Senate farm bill also contains a restriction on lottery winners.
Critics of the measure said the cuts would fall disproportionately on children.
“Yes, the federal government has budget problems, but children didn’t cause them, and cutting anti-hunger investments is the wrong way to solve them,” said Bruce Lesley, president of First Focus Campaign for Children, a child advocacy group.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly four million people would be removed from the food stamp program under the House bill starting next year. The budget office said after that, about three million a year would be cut off from the program.
The budget office said that, left unchanged, the number of food stamp recipients would decline by about 14 million people — or 30 percent — over the next 10 years as the economy improves. A Census Bureau report released on Tuesday found that the program had kept about four million people above the poverty level and had prevented millions more from sinking further into poverty. The census data also showed nearly 47 million people living in poverty — close to the highest level in two decades.
Historically, the food stamp program has been part of the farm bill, a huge piece of legislation that had routinely been passed every five years, authorizing financing for the nation’s farm and nutrition programs. But in July, House leaders split the bill’s farm and nutrition sections into separate measures, passing the farm legislation over Democrats’ objections.
The move came after the House rejected a proposed farm bill that would have cut $20 billion from the food stamp program. Conservative lawmakers helped kill the bill, saying the program needed deeper cuts.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Your Social Security raise will be about 1.5% Even a small COLA can be a big help—if you know how to use it 30 Comments NEW Watchlist Relevance LEARN MORE
By Robert Powell, MarketWatch Some 58 million Social Security beneficiaries still don’t know—yet—what their official cost-of-living increase for 2014 will be, thanks largely to the government shutdown. But that information is expected next week when the government releases inflation statistics for September, and at least two organizations have estimated that Social Security’s COLA for 2014 will be among the smallest increases since 1975.
The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) estimated that the COLA next year will be between 1.4% and 1.6%, which the group noted is a bit smaller than the 1.7% increase in 2013. And the Senior Citizens League (TSCL) estimated that the 2014 COLA will be about 1.4% to 1.5%, which is well below the historical average of 4.1% and below the 10-year average of 2.5%.
Read Social Security to Rise Again.
Read The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) Estimates 2014 COLA Will Mark Lowest Five-Year Growth in More Than 3 Decades.
Shutterstock.com ENLARGE IMAGE Even a small COLA is good if you know what to do with it. Of note, the Social Security Act specifies a formula for determining each COLA. According to the formula, COLAs are based on increases in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). CPI-Ws are calculated on a monthly basis by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
And a COLA effective for December of the current year is equal to the percentage increase (if any) in the average CPI-W for the third quarter of the current year over the average for the third quarter of the past year in which a COLA became effective. If there is an increase, it must be rounded to the nearest tenth of 1%. If there is no increase, or if the rounded increase is zero, there is no COLA.
For the record, inflation, as measured by the CPI-W, has been low over the past 12 months, running at around 1.6%. Read Latest Cost-Of-Living Adjustment. Also, read CPI For Urban Wage Earners And Clerical Workers.
So given that sort of COLA, what might you do if you if you aren’t yet taking Social Security? And what might you do if you are taking Social Security?
Small COLA increase can make deferring Social Security more attractive
So one bit of good news for those who haven’t claimed Social Security yet is that small COLA increases can make deferring your Social Security even more attractive. “For those that are on the fence about when to claim their Social Security, small COLAs can make claiming Social Security at a later time even more attractive,” said Matthew Allen, the co-founder and CEO of Social Security Advisors.
In addition to the regular delayed retirement credits that will continue to accumulate by deferring the age at which Social Security is claimed, Allen said claimants will avoid locking in a lower base benefit amount by claiming later.
For the record, Social Security benefits are increased by a certain percentage (depending on date of birth) if you delay your retirement beyond full retirement age, according to the SSA. The benefit increase no longer applies when you reach age 70, even if you continue to delay taking benefits. If you were born in 1943 or later, the yearly rate of increase is 8%. Read Retirement Planner: Delayed Retirement Credits.
Maximize your Social Security
COLAs are important, but Allen said it’s even more important to figure out how to get the highest possible Social Security benefit for your household benefit.
“You want to make sure that one is maximizing his or her Social Security by making the best choices about when to file and how to coordinate one’s Social Security benefits with his or her spouse in order to receive the highest combined spousal and survivor benefits that are available,” said Allen.
your worth will be determined.....by other people
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Posted: 10/25/2013 9:20 am EDT | Updated: 10/25/2013 10:23 am EDT
WASHINGTON -- Next month food stamp benefits will automatically shrink for all 47 million Americans enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Pamela Gwynn of Crawfordsville, Ind., heard about the cut in a letter from the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration. The letter explained that a federal law called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly known as the "stimulus package," had given food stamp recipients a temporary boost in 2009.
"The increased benefits provided by this law are expected to expire on November 1, 2013," the letter said. "Most families will see their benefits decrease in November due to the end of the extra benefits provided by the 2009 law." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/25/food-stamps_n_4158690.html
BUT MCDONALD'S SAYS..........................
Quoted Text
McDonald’s helpline to employee: Go on food stamps
Friday, October 25, 2013 9:31 EDT
The protest movement for higher wages for fast food workers has been simmering for several months now, in the form of employee walkouts and street rallies in several major US cities. Now, advocates have zeroed in on another group they say is suffering financially from fast food chains’ corporate stinginess: the American taxpayer.
The charge is that McDonald’s and other fast food giants who pay their workers less than what many consider a "living wage" are letting taxpayers pick up the slack in the form of public assistance. A video released Wednesday by the labor advocacy group Low Pay is Not Ok drives the point home. In it, Nancy Salgado, a 10-year McDonald’s employee in Chicago and a mother of two, calls a worker helpline called McResources, purportedly set up to help employees with financial issues. During the call, which the group recorded and edited, the operator suggests that Ms. Salgado apply for food stamps and Medicaid, giving her numbers in the Chicago area to call. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/25/mcdonalds-helpline-to-employee-go-on-food-stamps/
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
I saw a commercial on television last night, I didn't really catch all of it, but it looked like some candidates for local office were saying that 47% of our county tax dollars go for social services. Interesting, if true, because the idea that people locally are paying for any of this is a big change from what's been pushed in the past, all that money was supposedly free money from the state, or the feds. So, the Republicans who can't stop any of the President's agenda are somehow able to cut food stamps? Hmm. I know, everyone should have to buy a membership in a local food store, like BJ's, only you pay every single month to Golub or whomever whether you need the groceries or not. If you can't afford the membership, the government will pay part of the cost of your membershio for you, with other people's tax money. The supermarkets will tell you what you can and can't have, and if you need something like infant formula, which most people don't buy, the other people in your plan will have to pay a higher cost of membershio to cover that cost for you. That should improve "access to food", every body paying every month into a plan that does not grow or sell or otherwise provide food, and that plan will pay part of the cost of food for you. Be aware that if you do buy something like infant formula, the government will decide whether or not they want you to have it any more. Also, if you get on in years, the government might decide that there is no point in you having nutritious food anymore, you are just going to die anyway.
I saw a commercial on television last night, I didn't really catch all of it, but it looked like some candidates for local office were saying that 47% of our county tax dollars go for social services. Interesting, if true, because the idea that people locally are paying for any of this is a big change from what's been pushed in the past, all that money was supposedly free money from the state, or the feds. So, the Republicans who can't stop any of the President's agenda are somehow able to cut food stamps? Hmm. I know, everyone should have to buy a membership in a local food store, like BJ's, only you pay every single month to Golub or whomever whether you need the groceries or not. If you can't afford the membership, the government will pay part of the cost of your membershio for you, with other people's tax money. The supermarkets will tell you what you can and can't have, and if you need something like infant formula, which most people don't buy, the other people in your plan will have to pay a higher cost of membershio to cover that cost for you. That should improve "access to food", every body paying every month into a plan that does not grow or sell or otherwise provide food, and that plan will pay part of the cost of food for you. Be aware that if you do buy something like infant formula, the government will decide whether or not they want you to have it any more. Also, if you get on in years, the government might decide that there is no point in you having nutritious food anymore, you are just going to die anyway.
You don't like fascism? It was voted in democratically?
I know you jest, but I'd like to point out that this "tax" wasn't voted in, and also that the ACA that exists now bears no relation to the thing that was purportedly voted in. The President exempted all those who could put up a serious fight to it, and also just flouted the parts of the law he didn't feel like obeying. Now Sebelius is saying that those she works for do not want her fired. Notice that someone holding a high government office does not consider herself accountable to the American people. People in America are not making enough money to buy food, and the economy has recovered?
this rail was laid 2 generations ago.....the problem is that it becomes a badge of some kind of sick honor for politicians (regardless of party) to be able to step up to a podium and puff out their chest and say..."the poor fu(king americans who need this should have it and we're going to give it to them without telling them the value of it. why? because we will tell you your worth via the fiat feudal system in place now." EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN SAYS THIS IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER....it's called status quo speak.......
box likes to polarize the dems and reps as if either party is better at partaking in this sick-minded stockholm syndrome charade...
I don't believe in taking from the 'rich' to give to the 'poor' because that places labels on people for control....it's NOT fu(king charity......
but here is a perspective that explains the stockholm syndrome backlash:
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
This Chart Proves the More People Work, the Less Productive They Become Chris Miles's avatar image By Chris Miles 9 minutes ago 0 Here's an interesting statistic: The Greeks are some of the most hardworking in the world, putting in over 2,000 hours a year on average. Germans, on the other hand, are comparative slackers, working about 1,400 hours each year.
But there's a twist: German productivity is about 70% higher than their Greek counterparts. The Greeks for their part have an economy that is in complete shambles.
Is there a correlation between hours worked and productivity? According to new data compiled by the OECD — rich, mostly Western nations — and The Economist, long hours might not correlate into financial success.
SHARE:
As The Economist points out, Americans are relatively productive and work relatively long hours. And within the American labour force hours worked among the rich have risen while those of the poor have fallen.
Why is productivity important? Increasing national productivity can raise living standards because more real income improves people's ability to purchase goods and services, enjoy leisure, improve housing and education and contribute to social and environmental programs. Productivity growth also helps businesses to be more profitable. It's a magical economic cycle.
SHARE:
It's a relatively simple observation; why wouldn't longer hours lead to fatigue, and thus lower productivity. A Standford economics report makes clear that there is clear relationship between hours worked and productivity.
"Overworked employees may simply be substantially less productive at all hours of the work day, enough so that their average productivity decreases to the extent the additional hours they are working provide no benefit (and, in fact, are detrimental).
"An overworked employee might, after a certain number of hours (or, perhaps, on the last day of the week) be so fatigued that any additional work he or she might try to perform would lead to mistakes and oversights that would take longer to fix than the additional hours worked."
Of course. That's what mom always said.
But on a macro level, it's interesting to see countries (like Germany and France) which have an adequate work-life balance be succeeding economically more than countries that don't. The most simple life philosophy — having some you time — could also be the best national economic policy
Logged
