1.03.2010

money to kill, money to burn

This is criminal. Although I am an atheist, I am tempted to use the word sin.

The New York Times reports:
About six million Americans receiving food stamps report they have no other income, according to an analysis of state data collected by The New York Times. In declarations that states verify and the federal government audits, they described themselves as unemployed and receiving no cash aid — no welfare, no unemployment insurance, and no pensions, child support or disability pay.

Their numbers were rising before the recession as tougher welfare laws made it harder for poor people to get cash aid, but they have soared by about 50 percent over the past two years. About one in 50 Americans now lives in a household with a reported income that consists of nothing but a food-stamp card.

Then we have this: click!

And in this same land, socialism is a dirty word.

6 comments:

James said...

I can't remember who it was, but a few weeks ago I came across a quote form a conservative pundit or politician who was bragging along the lines of, "People don't need hand-outs. When I was young, my family was poor, and we made do without government assistance. We got by on my father's salary and Food Stamps."

L-girl said...

Ha! Sounds like this and this, and such.

impudent strumpet said...

Craig T. Nelson. I knew that for some bizarre reason.

But the mystery remains: what does he think food stamps are then?

L-girl said...

An off-Broadway theatre I worked at had a big hit with a crappy play called "Friends", starring Ron Silver (then known as "Rhoda's sister's boyfriend" - Julie Kavner herself still pretty unknown) and Craig T. Nelson. Both actors later became conservative assholes.

I don't think the play had anything to do with it.

L-girl said...

But the mystery remains: what does he think food stamps are then?

An abridged version of your question also works:

...does he think...?

James said...

Craig T. Nelson. I knew that for some bizarre reason.

That's the one. For some reason I was remembering it as having come from a political professional of some sort.

Another great example of "if I want it, it's good, if you want it, it's bad" came up a couple of days ago from Orin Hatch. When someone responded to his demands to kill health care reform because it adds to the deficit (though it's actually designed to reduce the deficit some over time), someone pointed out that Bush's Medicare expansion -- which cost more than the current HCR bill does -- didn't even have provisions for paying for it. It was just added, 100%, to the deficit.
Hatch responded: "It was standard practice not to pay for things... We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question."

I wish I'd known that there was a time when not paying for things was standard practice, I could have saved a lot of money.

And if they were concerned about it, they did a good job of hiding their concern...