Only Journalists Offended by Romney’s “47 Percent” Remarks


Pages: 1 2

Romney’s argument that income tax hikes aren’t as unpopular as they once were because fewer people actually pay income taxes meshes with the numbers. The Tax Policy Center reports that 46 percent of Americans, a number too close for coincidence to Romney’s 47 percent, pay no federal income tax. With more than one in three workers not working, one in twenty workers on disability, and more than one in seven Americans depending on food stamps, an electoral tipping point may be near where so many voters depend on government that the party of government can count on Election Day majorities.

And if the grim statistics don’t convince, remember the jubilation of Peggy Joseph over a potential Obama victory during the 2008 campaign? “I never thought this day would ever happen,” the Sarasota voter explained. “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. If I help him, he’s going to help me.’

Surely in conveying how handouts corrupt Americans Ronald Reagan’s “welfare queen” story has nothing on Miss Peggy’s YouTube clip, right?

Romney asked for Mother Jones to release his remarks in full, which the magazine promised to do until it acknowledged that the remarks weren’t captured in full. Mother Jones claims the camera “inadvertently turned off” while recording Romney before being turned back on. Romney could credibly claim to have been taken out of context. But with the context of Peggy Joseph, and record numbers of Americans asking what their country can do for them rather than what they can do for their country, Romney’s remarks work parsed as well as they do in full. Everyone, save for journalists, seems to understand the context.

It’s not necessarily that Romney’s media detractors find his off-the-record remarks off putting. They find conservatism off putting. Living in deep-blue cities, working alongside partisan crusaders, and educated by an ideologically-narrow professorate, the scribes find uncontroversial remarks so foreign because they’ve been marinated in environments so foreign to their fellow Americans.

Who, really, is out of touch here?

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • SHmuel HaLevi

    The enemy within is the worst one.
    AN example in contrast. The Israeli media is being re aligned as we speak by the people cutting off the rpinted side of the inimical media thus crushing down the hideaways of the local version of the MSM.
    After decades of insidious, in many cases foreign NGO's financed assaults against the State, they are being chopped down to size.
    The US people will have to take action as well.
    Good luck USA! The country is great and deserves better.

  • Atikva

    FIRE Jim Messina.

  • Asher

    Frankly I am sick and tired of the media lying to the people about the state of the nation. I am also mad about the country being endangered because of a bad foreign policy, and Iran's nuclear capabilities looming on the horizon. Obama will re-distribute more wealth if hes elected again, and some of us are paying almost 50% as it is. Time for people who don't work to get off the couch and find a job, whether its a physical labor job, or a McDonalds job. Have some pride and quit taking a free ride while the rest of us work, donate to charities and try to support the country..

    • Jim_C

      The figure Romney speaks of represents elderly on fixed income, people who make $20,000 a year (your McDonalds folks), and the rest who contribute through payroll and other taxes.

      Whereas your pal, poor, set-upon Romney, shelters a huge pile of dough offshore, keeping it out of government coffers while his counterparts scream about not having enough revenue to pay for the services we expect. That's the GOP in a nutshell–withhold money from something, then complain when it's not working and blame it on government incompetence.

      • Kevin Stroup

        Last time I checked it was not illegal for Romney to keep his money overseas. Why should he pay more in taxes than he has to? Do you pay more in taxes than the government requires you to do?
        But this avoids the whole looming question: Why am I required to pay for someone elses lifestyle? Why are your financial problems my concern? I have my own problems. I do not need yours too.

        • Jim_C

          Because, simply put, society costs money. Nobody likes being taxed, Benjamin Franklin notes, but if they enjoy the benefits of a society, they'd better be prepared to pay for them.

          I don't shelter money I should be taxed on. I pay what I owe. Romney and his cohort–his true constituency–doesn't even want to pay the rate he paid back in Clinton's time, much less the one in Reagan's time. Why are the elderly's problems anyone's concern? Why don't they just take care of themselves? Why should poor children be fed? Why should a populace be educated? Why should their health care be my responsibility? Why do I have to pay for infrastructure? Why should my food be regulated? Society costs money.

          The answer, quite simply, involves freedom. All talk of freedom has been successfully perverted into a discussion of confiscation (of income). No one considers what freedom looks like when they have no health care because dad lost his job, or because their retirement account, supposedly looked after by reputable private company, suddenly disappears in a deregulated casino. What does freedom look like when, even with insurance, you suddenly have an illness that bankrupts you? What does freedom look like when your classroom has 40 students and your teacher has to spend half the time correcting the miscreants? All because of lack of funding, because guys like Mitt are chuffed about paying a rate he paid 20 years ago!

          We are watching as elections are increasingly decided, not only funded, by people with boatloads of money. Having lots of money is not a crime, it's a blessing–but when a single person can "buy" a congressional candidate–what does that say about your and my voice in this democracy? Are we really being represented? That is a question of freedom.

          Yes, I wish democrats talked more about the effect their policies have on business. But I watched the GOP convention, and the Democratic Convention. Only one of those conventions talked about the problems of and solutions for everyday people. The other one gave me flag-waving bromides while people in government or seeking government office told me about how bad government was.

          • Joe_Ks

            No problem with buying a presidency, so long as it is a big government, nanny state, socialist out to kill opportunity, and with it, real freedom, huh? I am sixty years old. I still work like a dog, I get nothing from the government, but I have seen hard times, I have lived in trees, under bridges and in old cars and I can tell you this: The man who lives in a beat up old car with no money for gas in the dead of winter who is free is better off than the man who lives in government housing and has had his guts removed by addictive hand outs. You don't get to be over 60 without seeing hard times. Hard times don't make you a thief, they don't make you vote for thieves who steal from others and give to you. Hand outs do that. When you give a man a free ride, you take his guts away. The old saying "Freedom is not free" is not just about the price soldiers pay. When it gets down to the nitty gritty, where the rubber meets the road in every life, you either stand up or lay down. Freedom is about standing up, being allowed to do so. Laying down is about gimme, gimme, gimme. There is nothing wrong with protecting those who cannot protect themselves. There is something seriously wrong with protecting those who will not do any thing for themselves. Vote Democrat. It's easier than working.

          • wsk

            Jim, if you need to assuage your white-guilt, you can always volunteer to pay more taxes to the government. Nobody will stop you , but you DO NOT have the right to tell me that I must pay more to support someone else. If you fail to understand that then it explains why a POS like the man-child messiah was elected in the first place.

          • Jim_C

            If you make anywhere near what Mitt makes, pay your fair share or get out. I'm sure a libertarian paradise like Somalia would love to have you.

            If you're anywhere in the vicinity of the middle class, it's Mitt who'll be asking you to pay more, not Barack.

    • drpc1a

      Under President Obama:

      Every time Law Enforcement gets paid, that’s Redistribution!

      Every time Senior Citizens get their Social Security from workers who are currently having this payroll deduction, that’s Redistribution!

      Every time Wounded Warriors collect Veteran’s Disability, that’s Redistribution!

      Every time Navy Seals get paid, that’s Redistribution!

      Every time College & University Students get Pell Grant, that’s Redistribution!

      Under Tricky Mitt Romney:

      Every time Bain shut down a factory in a Collective Bargaining State, that’s Redistribution!
      Every time Tricky Mitt’s Foreign Investments pay him, that’s Redistribution!
      Every time Gov. GW Romney gave Tricky Mitt $$$, that’s Redistribution!
      Under Tricky Mitt, Redistribution will mean the Top 3 % of Wage Earners will pay less Taxes
      While the Middleclass will pay for it, that’s Redistribution!

      Vote in Nov!
      Tricky Mitt Show US Your Papers!
      ¡Muéstrenoslos!
      Lyin’ Ryan Had to Show U 10 yrs of Tax Fillings!

  • Jim_C

    Ah, let the "damage control" spin begin! Poor Mitt: how could he know it wasn't safe to speak his mind behind closed doors in an election year?

    Pravda-surpassing Fox News, after mightily trying to explain what Mitt "really meant" and deriding the comments as happening "way back in May," wasted no time in bringing up a pro-redistribution quote from Obama–from 1998!

    Aside from the fact that society, itself, is redistribution–one can only shake their head at the sheer mendacity of the current GOP. All this time they talked of a presidential candidate contemptuous of half the country–turns out, it was their guy!

    • Chris Nichols

      No, Jim, the civil society is voluntary cooperation. Forced redistribution is tyranny. You are either a sock puppet or on the dole yourself in some capacity to apologize for sloth. Also, comparing a the left-wing news apparatus of the old Soviet Union to the supposedly "right-wing" Fox news is quite a stretch.

      • Jim_C

        Ah, no need for personal attacks, Chris (I'm a job creator, myself). You are entitled to your opinion of Fox News. But I give you this horrible piece of s_c__lism:

        "All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

        Benjamin Franklin

    • Joe_Ks

      only in your fantasies.

  • Jim_C

    "Romney could claim to be taken out of context?"

    Yes, maybe on planet Mars. This isn't like when Fox News takes a phrase or sentence and then constructs two days of phony news about it. On these recordings you are able to hear whole sequences of Mitt's delightful views on people whose family income is right around what it cost his swells apiece to sit and hear him drop his little pearls of clueless contempt.

    • Chris Nichols

      Your reading comprehension is quite poor Jim, see it was Mother Jones who took his remarks out of context. You also seem to have a poor grasp of numbers as well.

      • Jim_C

        Mother Jones recorded his remarks…long strings of them. Hard to take them out of context when the context is actually there.

        • Chris Nichols

          Then why did they edit out two minutes of the recording.

    • guest

      Funny Senior Editor Corn, a communist, only released it when his ideological ally Obama needed bailing out from his cover up of an ambassador's murder by terrorists. Last time a terror attack cover up occurred in Spain the incumbent lost.

  • Chezwick

    Bill Crystal, that genteel, urbane, sophisticated William F Buckley acolyte…was apparently also offended. Some conservative!

    • mlcblog

      For real. I've had his number for years.

  • Chezwick

    "Media spin"??????

    It couldn't be more pronounced.

    MSM: "Romney doesn't care about 47% of the country."

    Romney: "[My campaign is writing off the 47% of the electorate so dependent on government subsidies that they'd never support me.]"

    He was talking about electoral politics and voting patterns….NOT about ANYBODY's worth (or lack of) as a human being. He was in no way implying he didn't care about these people as human beings, only that he couldn't expect their support in the election.

    • Jim_C

      Saying these people think of themselves as "victims" was fairly contemptuous.

      • mcwrath

        The ones who see themselves as 'victims' would not vote for Romney anyway. Unlike how the left-media is spinning it, it should not follow that every welfare recipient will now go and vote for obama. As most welfare recipients may well recognise that what they need is a regenerated economy which would give them a better chance to break away from welfare. And Romney is the beter man for that.
        In fact it is quite an insult to alot of welfare recipients to automatically assume they do not know in what context Romney was talking….The context of 'get America going again'. ( But with the left you could't expect anything less; from the day Marx put whole sectors of people into catagories of imutable bands they never cauth on to independently thinking individuals. – other than to call them bad consciousness should the 'prolatarian' disent )

        • Jim_C

          Where Chezwick I think correctly points out Romney was making a point about campaign strategy, I think you're stretching a bit. Romney painted a large swath of people with a broad brush and now his apologists are doubling down on that. But yes, you don't have to go far to find someone who is on, or has benefited from welfare decrying welfare–Paul Ryan is case in point.

          If we take it back to actual substance, what is Romney actually offering to regenerate the economy? Tax hikes on the people hit hardest by the downturn, tax breaks for the people who did not suffer and in some cases actually engineered that downturn. Somehow, jobs are supposed to trickle down from this, even though they did not in the previous 8 years. Wall Street is supposedly leery of investing because they don't trust the guy who told them straight out in 2008 "I will raise your taxes." (Ironic, isn't it? Wall Street not being "trusting.") And that's pretty much it. This is a guy who thinks the median income is $200-250,000. I watched the convention–I heard attacks on "s-c-lism" and bromides about "job creators." But no ideas. At least the democrats bothered to explain what Obama was doing and make the case for why it will help.

          • Chezwick

            "Tax hikes on the people hit hardest by the downturn"

            Where has Romney ever supported tax hikes on the poor? All he is doing is advocating the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. As for ideas, Paul Ryan came out with a very specific and courageous budget plan to pare down the debt…and for his trouble, he was mercilessly attacked by the Dems for "throwing Granny off a cliff" among other things.

            All we get from the Dems is bromides that "the rich have to pay their fair share."

            Well let me tell you something friend, if we decided tomorrow to raise business and corporate taxes to 100% of profit, our fiscal plight is so monumental that doing so STILL wouldn't balance the budget….(but of course it WOULD completely destroy the business climate in the country). The REAL problem is our spending addiction and the massive entitlement state, something that no amount of tax increases can BEGIN to ameliorate.

            Meanwhile, the Dems are woefully silent on what programs – if any – they might cut in order to lower the deficit (excepting Defense of course, which is the one ACTUAL constitutionally-mandated responsibility of the federal government). Hell, the Dems are so afraid of tackling ANY budgetary issues at all that the Democratic-controlled Senate hasn't passed a single budget in THREE YEARS!!!…they prefer to punt.

            So please spare us the absurd contention that the Dems are offering specifics on how to restore even a semblance of fiscal sanity to our budget woes. They are cowards and refuse to do what Paul Ryan did, which was to spell out a specific plan of action.

          • Chris Nichols

            How are jobs supposed to be created by raising taxes on those who create and invest capital jobs, Jim?

      • wsk

        but completely accurate….. When you rely upon the govt. because you are repeatedly told that you can't do it on your own od that you are entitled is probably the wort kind of victimization.

  • RAS

    I never realized, until it was mentioned in an econ course in high school, that I had grown up in privately owned low income housing; a one bedroom, cold water flat, in which my parents raised three children. My father, a shoe salesman, along with my baker, policeman, painter, bus driving neighbors never required or requested welfare or food stamps. They all worked. How did we do? Pretty well. Using the opportunities afforded me by a free enterprise America I managed to realize my childhood dream and become an electrical engineer. I wonder how many of the poor folks dependent on Obama's redistribution program will be able to say the same at life's end? Mitt Romney has exposed a narcotic far worse than any drug.

    • zionit

      Bless you. Romney, no one's perfect, represents the flag bearer of Western values, and awake people all over the earth are aware of this…see Melanie Phillips, of London's Daily Mail recognizing that Romney tells it like it is:
      http://melaniephillips.com/shocking-a-us-presiden

    • mcwrath

      Quite so, It was of that old and great american virtue of self realiance. something the socialwelfare promoting democrats – and most of europe – have long lost sight of. The loss of that cherished virtue does generate a different psychological conditioniong of dependency and worse 'entitlement'.. But it does not necessarly follow that everybody on welfare does not recognise this and will vote for obama. The point is most welfare recipients were once workers or want to work, and for Romney the message is that in order to get people off welfare you don't need to increase it but regenerate the economy so welfare recipients will avail of opportunity of leave it behind. Its about generatin prosperity.

    • Jim_C

      I wonder what institution supported that low income housing that sheltered your family? Who employed that policeman and bus driver? I'm not sure when you grew up, but my guess is tax rates were astronomically higher on the upper brackets, as well.

      The GI Bill had conservative critics who derided it as welfare, as well. Mitt Romney's father started off life on welfare and food stamps. Paul Ryan, whose family made its fortune off government contracts, was supported by Social Security when times were tough for his family. In short, the country is full of people who benefited from government assistance who are not "welfare queens."

      A society with freedom and opportunity for all costs money, and unless we stop kidding ourselves about that, the world will leave us behind.

      • Chris Nichols

        "A society with freedom and opportunity for all costs money, and unless we stop kidding ourselves about that, the world will leave us behind."

        What? That money comes from people who actually produce something and employs people without being micromanaged by people who produce nothing, e.g. the government. When people have more of their own money to spend or contribute others through charities as they see fit society benefits more than a centrally planned entity taking from the makers to give to the takers in exchange for votes. And, RAS mentioned that the housing was privately owned, you lack reading comprehension skills. Then you trot out the " we need to pay public servants" strawman, as though conservatives argue against it, which we don't. We make the case that governments primary function is to preserve order and protect property and that police are paid for at the local level, not federal while simultaneously neglecting to mention that 70% of the federal budget goes to wealth transfer payments, not necessary public servants.

        • Jim_C

          The point was, scratch anyone that tells you they made it "all on their own" and you'll find someone whom the government probably helped somewhere along the way. I didn't ask who owned the housing; I asked how it was built. Typically low income housing is built with some sort of government provision or assistance.

          I'll tell you what: if conservatives could explain how we will be able to afford things like health care and college costs, all skyrocketing, on the relatively paltry savings we in the middle class would get via tax breaks, I'm all ears. But you guys seem allergic to the fact that Wall Street was operating like a casino–legally. You seem allergic to the fact that Republicans borrow and spend with as much gusto as their counterparts.

          Now, I agree with conservatives on several points. We need a robust national defense. I do not want a government administered health care system (which Obamacare thankfully is not) but I DO want mandatory, universal coverage. I would like to do away with the Dept. of Education, and in fact, completely, radically revise what we think of as the educational system. Currently it is an outdated model for 19th century agrarian children.

          But I also want roads, bridges, safe food, water, and air. I don't want to have to face bankruptcy should a loved one have a serious illness. In a civil, rich society, I don't think that is too much to ask.

          Here's another thing I'd like to see conservatives address. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT…or at least, we used to be. Now our representatives can be bought by anyone with the means. I don't see that as benefiting society or contributing to human liberty. We need to revamp our election system from the showbiz nightmare it is now. The way it is now allows special interests to rig the game. I am afraid the path you suggest will bring us to a situation not unlike England at the start of the the 18th century or the US at the end of the 19th. Real class division, bubble, crash, bubble, crash…

          • Chris Nichols

            "The point was, scratch anyone that tells you they made it "all on their own" and you'll find someone whom the government probably helped somewhere along the way. "
            Who?

            Yeah, I get we are the government Jimmy, we say that all the time. And that low income housing built with government assistance, there is nothing build with government assistance, it's built with government coercion by taking money from taxpayers and contracting it out to a private business. Tell me genius, how is government going to provide mandatory universal coverage knowing that all they do is take from one to give to another? Tell me one government program that has been kept under budget, or reduced costs on taxpayers. The reason care is so high now is because government regulates insurance companies already, telling them what kinds of options they have to provide which makes consumers have to pay for coverage they don't need or want, they also regulate competitions by not making policies portable across state lines. The government is also currently the largest insurer right now, and they deny the most claims. And those wall street banker donate almost exclusively to Democrats, along with the labor unions Dems bail out with our money once they have destroyed their own industries by pricing themselves out of the market. You want to eliminate lobbying, then we need to reform the tax code which would eliminate legions of tax lawyers and accountants that have sprung up to fill the need for businesses to keep more of their own money, but you won't find one dem willing to do that. Of course people are going to lobby to keep more of their own money when the government tries to take more of it.

          • Chris Nichols

            "'ll tell you what: if conservatives could explain how we will be able to afford things like health care and college costs, all skyrocketing, on the relatively paltry savings we in the middle class would get via tax breaks, I'm all ears. "

            I'll tell you what Jimmy, you tell me how an entity that produces nothing, e.g. the government, can control costs. The reason costs for these goods and services skyrocket is because government shields consumers from the real costs when they redistribute income to pay for these things. See, Jimmy, there used to be a time in this country when people provided for themselves, and paid their own way without government artificially inflating things, like education, at all levels, and health care, along with savings and reitrement benefits. I don't think it's too much to ask of you to stop asking the government to provide every little things for you. The reason this society got rich in the first place is because people used to realize that wealth had to be created, not split and divided.

          • Loyal Achates

            And I suppose the government-created infrastructure – roads, bridges, water, sanitation, railways, electricity, not to mention the most powerful military in the history of the world – was in no way connected with our success as a nation? The world isn't this silly divide between 'givers and takers'; it's a reciprocal system, otherwise it wouldn't work.

            I hope you're not suggesting that a person's income is an exact reflection of their contribution to society.

  • cynthia curran

    This my take, Republicans need to be consistent, George W Bush let in millions of people from Mexico and some from Central America that were only able to do construction work. A lot of the earn income tax credit people and a lot of our welfare is because of illegal immigrants from the above countries that have American children. Granted, there are more white and black on the dole because of the bad economy but if Republicans want to reduce welfare they need to abandon the Hispanic courting of the Bushes.

  • http://tarandfeathersusa.wordpress.com/ Iratus Vulgas

    The so called safety net that Jack Kemp described as a "hammock" has gone way beyond that. It's turned into a comfy lounge chair that comes with beer, chips, and cable TV. Tempting, I must admit.

  • Soylent Green

    I'm a retired Social Worker for the State of Oklahoma. I can't tell you how many times we had people quit a job so they could stay on welfare.

  • drpc1a

    ***Which Tricky Mitt Romney Should We Believe?***

    2006-Register, Pay Taxes & Apply For Citizenship. No Priority Status.
    2011-The Federal Govt. should adopt Arizona SB 1070 “Show Me Your Papers” Law.
    2011-Leave the Country… Self-Deportation would be the answer.
    2012- NO ‘Dream Act’, self-deport your butts back to where-ever!
    2012-My plan is better than President Obama’s, who doesn’t have one, elect me and I’ll then tell you the details!!!

    Caramba, ¿Tengo que tener fe en este hombre? ¡En ninguna manera!
    What the ___, I have to have faith in this man? No way!

    Vote in Nov!
    Tricky Mitt Show US Your Papers!
    ¡Muéstrenoslos!
    Lyin’ Ryan Had to Show U 10 yrs of Tax Fillings!

  • drpc1a

    Tricky Mitt UNDER PAID his taxes. Donated about $4 million to charity in 2011, but claimed only $2.25 million as a deduction.
    That means the Romneys voluntarily paid a higher tax rate than they were legally required.

    In January, Tricky Mitt insisted, "I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president."

    So, Tricky Mitt said he'd be unqualified to be president if he paid more than is legally due, and then he paid more than is legally due, because of a "unique position."

    Why did Tricky Mitt UNDER PAY his taxes?

    1. Tricky Mitt claimed he'd always paid only what was due, and not a dollar more and that his tax rate was no less than 13%.
    So with this statement on the RECORD, he was able to manipulate his tax rate by only claiming a portion of his donations to charity; 2.25 out of 4.

    *If Tricky Mitt would have claimed the total $4 million in deductions, he would have an effective tax rate of ***8%***, not the 13% he'd previously claimed he paid. Do the Math!

    2. Tricky Mitt has 3 yrs to amend this 2011 tax return. If you believe that his lawyer will not file an amended tax return the day after the election in order to collect the extra $225,000 and use the $1.75 million in deductions,
    I have a bridge in Tacoma to sell U!

    Tricky Mitt lives up to his pseudonym; he will bend the facts, mislead the masses, and he is in fact a LAIR! Just like his VP choice Lyin' Ryan!

    Vote in Nov!

    ***Tricky Mitt Show US Your Papers!***
    ***¡Muéstrenoslos!***
    Lyin' Ryan Had to Show U 10 Yrs of His Returns!

  • http://www.facebook.com/drpc1a D R Peterson Carpenter

    *** If Social Services are Enough, Apparently Your Mothers are Buying Your Groceries. ***

    Here's a better break down:

    1 Adult & 1 Child

    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) [5 yr Benefit Limit {NOT lifetime}]

    $385

    Requirements:
    Participate in WorkFirst Program 32 hrs a wk. Includes attending all workshops, daily job search and application submission. Must check in daily.
    After 30 days, participants are required to "work" a job assigned by WorkFirst, usually at Local Govt or State Agency.

    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) [used to be food stamps]

    $367

    OK,for a total of $752 mo. a participant must put in 128 hrs a month of 'work".

    That is $5.85 an hour.

    That is a good wage for a teenager living at home but for a Parent & Child it IS NOT a LIVABLE WAGE! (What State worker gets $5.85 an hr?)

    What about the necessary time to get trained and start a good job, there is not any, unless you want someone else to raise your child, (Ann Romney wouldn't)

    Vote in Nov!

    Tricky Mitt Show US Your Papers!

    ¡Muéstrenoslos¡

    Lyin' Ryan Had to Show U 10 Yrs of His Tax Returns!

  • drpc1a

    *** If Social Services are Enough, Apparently Your Mothers are Buying Your Groceries. ***

  • drpc1a

    *** If Social Services are Enough, Apparently Your Mothers are Buying Your Groceries. ***

    Here's a better break down:

    1 Adult & 1 Child

    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) [5 yr Benefit Limit {NOT lifetime}]

    $385

    Requirements:
    Participate in WorkFirst Program 32 hrs a wk. Includes attending all workshops, daily job search and application submission. Must check in daily.
    After 30 days, participants are required to "work" a job assigned by WorkFirst, usually at Local Govt or State Agency.

    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) [used to be food stamps]

    $367

    OK,for a total of $752 mo. a participant must put in 128 hrs a month of 'work".

    That is $5.85 an hour.

    That is a good wage for a teenager living at home but for a Parent & Child it IS NOT a LIVABLE WAGE! (What State worker gets $5.85 an hr?)

    What about the necessary time to get trained and start a good job, there is not any, unless you want someone else to raise your child, (Ann Romney wouldn't)

    Vote in Nov!

    Tricky Mitt Show US Your Papers!

    ¡Muéstrenoslos¡

    Lyin' Ryan Had to Show U 10 Yrs of His Tax Returns!