The children going hungry in America....

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
Try to smarten up a bit, dipshit.

A person who is out of work, doesn't collect unemployment and has two children gets about $650 per month. In case the math is too heavy for you, that's $22/day to feed four people, or less than two dollars per meal for each person.

They aren't eating T-bone. They're eating beans, rice, potatoes, canned vegetables, maybe some milk, a few eggs, and chicken or hamburger twice a week. And they're selling some of what they get to raise a few dollars to buy the kids a few scraps of clothing, maybe even a trip to the dentist, or some school supplies.

Try it sometime. Try feeding yourself for under $6/day.

I see these people at the cut-rate grocery. I know what they buy - the cheapest shit which will keep them alive.

I'll tell you something else you don't know, asshole:

I'm all for people getting off their backsides and taking car of themselves, but I know something you don't know - sometimes bad shit happens to good people. Sometimes you have a grade school education, and your $8/hour job gets shipped to China. Sometimes your mother or father gets hit with huge medical bills and you help out. Sometimes you get injured and can't work. Sometimes your wife or husband hauls ass and leaves you with three kids under 12.

I know some of these people, and I can tell you that for every freeloading bum, there are ten people who would suck your rotten dick for a minimum wage job.

A new Lowe's opened here recently. They had 10,000 applicants for a hundred $10/hour jobs.

You can work and take care of yourself? Good for you. But here's the deal: Commie Pinko Lefties like me are ready to give....even you...a helping hand when we can afford it and you cannot.

Choke on that.

exactly the truth that neo cons dont care to hear

too easy to point at entitlement and make gov look bad for keeping ppl alive when they may need for the first time in their lives.

if you aint never walked in these mocassins you are one lucky rat bastid
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
Congress moves to keep Saturday mail delivery

I have often written about how difficult it can be to decipher what Congress does in legislation, and that was demonstrated yet again this week in the post-sequester-government budget bill that was approved by the House.

What was in that bill? Maybe the question should also be, what wasn't in the bill, and why that was so important.

My interest was piqued by a headline in the New York Times on Thursday, which caught me completely off guard:

"House Tells Postal Service to Keep Six-Day Delivery."

But wait - I didn't see anything in the bill on the Postal Service decision to get rid of first class letter delivery on Saturdays. And I read through that bill several times this week, just to make sure I wasn't missing something.

The Times story quoted Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, and sure enough, he had a full statement on his Congressional web site:

"The Continuing Resolution is clear; there will be six day delivery for the rest of the fiscal year,? said Serrano.

"Earlier this year the Postal Service announced they thought they had legal authority to end Saturday delivery. That analysis was wrong, but now there is no room for misunderstanding. This bill included advance appropriations for the Postal Service which continued the provision requiring six day delivery. There is no longer any possibility of misinterpretation: according to their own legal analysis these steps require the Postal Service to maintain six day delivery."

In seconds, I was digging deep into my electronic copy of the 269 pages of the House sequester/funding bill, searching for any language about the Postal Service that was referenced by Serrano.

Nothing.

I remembered the provision that had been tucked in previous budget bills:

"Provided further, That 6-day delivery and rural delivery of mail shall continue at not less than the 1983 level."

But that wasn't in the bill either.

I read through the bill a second and a third time, thinking maybe I just was missing it.

Then I finally realized that I was going about things the wrong way.

The provision I listed a few paragraphs above was part of a year-end omnibus budget bill approved by Congress in late 2011 for Fiscal Year 2012; that held the key.

Under Title I of this week's bill that was passed by the House entitled, "General Provisions," it basically says that for the rest of Fiscal Year 2013, all the plans for spending and legislative authorities will continue from that FY 2012 spending measure for a series of federal departments and agencies.

"SEC. 1101.
(a) Such amounts as may be necessary, at the level specified in subsection (c) and under the authority and conditions provided in applicable appropriations Acts for fiscal year 2012, for projects or activities (including the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees) that are not otherwise specifically provided for, and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority were made available in the following appropriations Acts:"

Then the bill approved this week in the House goes on to list the different major sections of that spending plan approved by Congress in December 2011, which is Public Law 112-74.

And in that list was this innocuous language:

"(4) The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012 (division C of Public Law 112?74)."

If you go to Division C of that law, you will find a section on the payment to the Postal Service Fund, which is basically Uncle Sam writing a check to the Postal Service for services rendered to the federal government.

And in that section is the money quote:

"Provided further, That 6-day delivery and rural delivery of mail shall continue at not less than the 1983 level"

So, without actually listing that familiar language about 6-day delivery in this week's bill, this funding measure still clamped down on the bid of the Postal Service to save some $2 billion a year.

I shook my head and realized my mistake.

For all of the work I did on that bill, I had missed the Saturday mail delivery story, though it wasn't exactly sitting out in the middle of a field with a big ribbon on it.

Bottom line, this bill prevents the Postal Service from getting rid of Saturday mail delivery in August, as USPS announced a few weeks ago, because it renews the statutory language from an earlier budget bill that was approved by Congress in December of 2011, which mandates nothing less than 6-day delivery of mail.

Could it be changed? Sure, it could come up on the Senate floor next week.

But don't hold your breath; there is a lot of opposition in the Senate to the idea of ending Saturday first class letter delivery.

It was another reminder that no matter how careful you are in the halls of Congress, no matter how many times you read through a major bill that is up for a vote - sometimes you can't uncover every nook and cranny in that legislative text unless you know the code.

This is another example of how you can "read the bill," but still not figure out everything that legislation might do.

...................................................................

who the fuck cares about Saturday delivery

congress ................... their rating level just lowered down to 8% approval

the Post office losing 80k jobs is just too boo hoo

they need to downsize and get their shit together

too much waste and fat in there.
 
Last edited:

theGibber1

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 27, 2001
8,615
64
0
Dallas TX
Just sad.

Yeah, I know. They're just not working hard enough. Or as Gibber1 would most likely conclude, perhaps they just don't want to change their situation badly enough!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21636723

Looks like you have been calling me out in a few threads the last week or so..... Sorry its taken me so long to respond to your jabs I am one of those busy business people you so dispise. Just dont have the time like you seem to.

As far as hungry kids of course I don?t blame them for the situation they are in and its a terrible thing. That is the kind of govt assistance I hope they get and will gladly pay taxes for.

But I will say this about the parents...My wife and I waited almost 3 yrs after being married till we decided we could afford to support a child. Why are people who cant even take care of themselves having kids??

My point is, Chrry when in your mind is an individual supposed to be responsible for their own actions and decisions???? Does that point ever come? Or is it always going to be the other guys fault?
These kids are going to grow up hard but eventually they will be adults and they will have choices to make like everyone else. Then they will have kids, their kids will have kids and on and on. When does the cycle end?? Someone down the line at some point has to say fuck this im getting my ass to school or get a job. CIE had good story about his family growing up with hardship. You should read it. No excuses in that family.

My grandfather did the same thing. He is a Choctaw Indian that came from a long line of drunks and losers. He was on the same path till his son was born and took a job in the oil fields. Supported his wife and two kids and pulled them all out of the gutter.
 

ChrryBlstr

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 11, 2002
7,407
54
48
Hoosier country
Gibbers....

Gibbers....

Looks like you have been calling me out in a few threads the last week or so..... Sorry its taken me so long to respond to your jabs I am one of those busy business people you so dispise. Just dont have the time like you seem to.

Don?t be so overly dramatic. You and I were having a discussion in one thread and yes, I brought up your name in this one because it addressed something that you spoke of directly. That hardly constitutes calling you out in a few threads.

Believe it or not, I don?t despise ?those busy business people? ? just the unethical ones. And you?re right, I?ve been spending far too much time on here instead of focusing on finishing up already?.I?ll give you that. Perhaps the ?excess time? is meant as a dig, maybe even related to being unemployed. Sometimes, it?s difficult to ascertain the tenor of one?s discourse on here. So yeah, fortunately, I?m not unemployed and "sucking from the government's teat and all the hardworking taxpayers." Far from it.

I?ll also attempt to respond to all of your points.

As far as hungry kids of course I don?t blame them for the situation they are in and its a terrible thing. That is the kind of govt assistance I hope they get and will gladly pay taxes for.

That?s great! You shouldn?t be blaming the kids.

But I will say this about the parents...My wife and I waited almost 3 yrs after being married till we decided we could afford to support a child. Why are people who cant even take care of themselves having kids??

I believe that you?re taking quite a leap here. First of all, why are you assuming that they couldn?t take care of themselves prior to having kids? Perhaps they encountered hardships later on in life. Secondly, if you restrict child bearing/rearing to only those that can afford it, regardless of how you define affordability, the entire population of the US would decrease astronomically. (This is related to another point.)

My point is, Chrry when in your mind is an individual supposed to be responsible for their own actions and decisions???? Does that point ever come? Or is it always going to be the other guys fault?

Everyone is responsible for their own actions and decisions. However, you are under the impression that inequality doesn?t exist. Either that or you just simply choose to ignore it. This must be factored in as it is part of the equation. Your belief that someone who works hard and does all the right things eventually accomplishes their goal ? the American dream ? is unattainable for most. If it were, don?t you think that the majority of the poor would have already achieved some sort of social uplift? Do you really believe that they choose to remain poor? What kind of logic is that? According to you, if one wants it badly enough, then they can achieve it. This is no longer the case. For a few lucky ones, sure. For the majority, not even close. It?s an impossibility because it is systemic. The system that we are all currently in is working as it should. (It?s all interrelated.)

Let me give you a couple of examples.

Who enters the military? Do the rich kids join? Maybe some upper-middle class (which, by the way, is shrinking exponentially). But, the majority of those that enlist belong to the lower-middle class and the lower-class. You can?t deny this. Why do they join? Perhaps some do to serve their country, but mostly, they enlist for an opportunity at an education, a salary, to see the world, to find themselves?these types of things. It is a viable option given to them to succeed at something. Otherwise, what other opportunities are truly available to the majority of them? Put it this way, given your prescribed scenario, if EVERYONE worked hard and succeeded, then who would be left to enlist??? (Related.)

Secondly, have you noticed the increase in the privatization of jails and prisons? How do you think they ensure profitability? Now run as a business, isn?t it in their best interest to maintain full capacity? And I dunno, is it a coincidence that the demographics of prisoners correlate to lower income individuals?

And finally, (I could list a tonne more but I?m trying to keep this concise ? YIKES!) do you truly believe that lower-income kids have different aspirations than their wealthier counterparts? Don?t you think that many of them similarly want to be doctors, lawyers, businessmen, etc.? Now think of the financial obstacles that they encounter on their way to success. Not quite the same as the wealthy kids, right? So unless they luck out and are super exceptional and land either an academic or an athletic scholarship, realistically, what are their chances of making it? And sometimes, when one?s hungry all the time, dreams tend to fade.

Just look at that post regarding those Californians planting gardens in the front of their houses. Imagine living in a place where there was no real access to healthy foods? Can?t you empathize with the difficulties these individuals face just to eat right? Can you appreciate how difficult it is to aspire to greater heights when even the most basic necessities remain unrealized?

These kids are going to grow up hard but eventually they will be adults and they will have choices to make like everyone else. Then they will have kids, their kids will have kids and on and on. When does the cycle end?? Someone down the line at some point has to say fuck this im getting my ass to school or get a job. CIE had good story about his family growing up with hardship. You should read it. No excuses in that family.
My grandfather did the same thing. He is a Choctaw Indian that came from a long line of drunks and losers. He was on the same path till his son was born and took a job in the oil fields. Supported his wife and two kids and pulled them all out of the gutter.

I?ve read Cie?s story and I?ve read your grandfather?s story. They?re both great illustrations of the real American dream. I have somewhat similar stories. My mom, her older brother and his wife moved to the US with very little but their medical degrees. They studied their asses off and passed the required exams and were certified. They worked hard, became successful, blah blah blah. Granted, they came from privileged backgrounds, but still, they moved to the US with practically nothing and hit the proverbial lottery. So yes, it IS absolutely possible to live the American dream. My point is that these stories (especially in today?s day and age) are more the exception than the rule. Everyone cannot be equally successful or success itself becomes a moot point. Not everyone can be wealthy or wealth itself becomes inconsequential. And therein lies the problem. Who decides who gets what?

So it?s NOT about being jealous and wanting what others have or asking for handouts. It's not even about working as hard as you can anymore. It?s about the (growing) existing inequality and the lack of opportunity for far too many. And to discount these realities is nothing short of foolhardy.

Man, that was long.

Peace! :)
 

ChrryBlstr

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 11, 2002
7,407
54
48
Hoosier country
Thanks, BP!

Yeah, I don't even bother with this guy, and I've had him on ignore for months. For some reason, I find him more intolerable than Hedgie - who I can still converse with somewhat.

Peace! :)
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
Cherry:
Do you equally despise the "unethical ones" who receive government benefits illegally?

Just wondering....

:shrug:
 

ChrryBlstr

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 11, 2002
7,407
54
48
Hoosier country
Cherry:
Do you equally despise the "unethical ones" who receive government benefits illegally?

Just wondering....

:shrug:

Without getting into too much detail, I would have to say that I am indifferent. Of course, more details and a better understanding of each and every situation could lead to a change in opinion.

Peace! :)
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
Ok....

So the unethical business owners who cheat on their taxes, let say, are bad...

.....but the people who scam welfare or unemployment or disability are justified?


Wonderful....
I guess in your train of thought, the welfare scammers are just some sort of entrepreneurs?
 

ChrryBlstr

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 11, 2002
7,407
54
48
Hoosier country
Ok....

So the unethical business owners who cheat on their taxes, let say, are bad...

.....but the people who scam welfare or unemployment or disability are justified?


Wonderful....
I guess in your train of thought, the welfare scammers are just some sort of entrepreneurs?

You're leaping to conclusions on claims that I haven't made.
 

bleedingpurple

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 23, 2008
22,493
304
83
52
Where it is real F ing COLD
I know of two people who fuck the system and for me I think they are equally bad as a business person who get loop holes.

There is a local who gets gov housing and gov assistance for years. He's like 43 but he plays pool 3 nights a week and plays horse shoes, drinks pitchers of tap beer every night. Cheap here $5 a pitcher.

He can't work cause he has "flat feet!" Can't make it up. What doctor gave him that way out?

He pisses me off and can understand why people get pist but up here it seems for every one of him their are 10 others who need it
 

krc

Registered User
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
1,879
31
0
Texas
I know of two people who fuck the system and for me I think they are equally bad as a business person who get loop holes.

There is a local who gets gov housing and gov assistance for years. He's like 43 but he plays pool 3 nights a week and plays horse shoes, drinks pitchers of tap beer every night. Cheap here $5 a pitcher.

He can't work cause he has "flat feet!" Can't make it up. What doctor gave him that way out?

He pisses me off and can understand why people get pist but up here it seems for every one of him their are 10 others who need it

I agree :0074
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
but up here it seems for every one of him their are 10 others who need it

Exactly. So some people would rather have 10 people starve to death rather than see 1 person game the system to have the luxury of living off welfare. What a great life.

:facepalm: :mj07:
 

ChrryBlstr

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 11, 2002
7,407
54
48
Hoosier country
I know of two people who fuck the system and for me I think they are equally bad as a business person who get loop holes.

There is a local who gets gov housing and gov assistance for years. He's like 43 but he plays pool 3 nights a week and plays horse shoes, drinks pitchers of tap beer every night. Cheap here $5 a pitcher.

He can't work cause he has "flat feet!" Can't make it up. What doctor gave him that way out?

BP! Yeppers, absolutely agree!

He pisses me off and can understand why people get pist but up here it seems for every one of him their are 10 others who need it

I think the problem is that people like the guy above are reported on much more than the others, which then leaves many with the impression that everyone's out to screw the system!

What TU's talking about.

Peace! :)
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top