Maximizing Welfare
Bruce C. Miller
Food stamps and other perks are a plus as well. Another consideration
is any maximum limits on the amount of time you can receive payments
or any red tape they put you through to get it.
Or, if anyone knows of a state-by-state comparison of welfare
benefits, I'd also be interested in that too.
Thanks for any info.
catalpa
"Bruce C. Miller" <bm3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd7d4b8a-69eb-4970...@e2g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Why limit yourself to a single state? For years there have been people
collecting welfare in both New York and New Jersey. Cheap ride on the PATH
train to go back and forth.
Marsha
If you wait until Obama gets elected, anyone will be able to collect for
any reason in any state for an unlimited amount of time.
Marsha/Ohio
William Souden
Dave
> any reason in any state for an unlimited amount of time.
>
> Marsha/Ohio
>
Yeah, but who is going to pay for it, when we are all on welfare? Oh, I
guess we just borrow a few MORE trillion from China, eh? -Dave
Jeff
QUIZ
1) Which presidential candidate has said (during the debate) that:
"We've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some
adjustments."
2) Both tax plans will raise the deficit. Whose tax plan is half the
cost to the deficit of the other?
Hint, it's not the candidate that you'll be voting for.
Trickle Down, AKA Voodoo Economics, always has had the same sad
result. In case you haven't noticed shoppers, 60% + of the economy, are
in retreat.
Jobs have been lost each and every month this year. Pumping money into
big business will not create jobs because there are no buyers. The only
thing that will happen is the same thing that is happening with the 250
Billion that has been pumped into banking. It will just sit there.
Now, you can buy into whatever wedge issues you want. But if you
really believe that even wealthy people are better off under a 36% max
rate with George W Bush than they were under Clinton's 39% then you may
have missed that the DJIA and S&P are now lower than when George W Bush
entered office. Those figures are red herrings anyways as no one pays
those top rates anyways after you figure in all the deductions the
wealthy are "entitled" to.
The trouble with republicans is that all they have is fear and the
only solution they have is tax cuts for the wealthy. Both those cards
have been played plenty the last 8 years and not even the Republican
Standard Bearer claims they've worked.
Just something for you not to think about, you can get back to your
wedge issues now.
Jeff
>
> Marsha/Ohio
>
JonL
My first guess would be Calif., esp- the SF area. A while back 2
counties in Northern Cal were even giving homeless guys about $350 per
mo.(some were caught double-dipping)
In most cities/states a healthy male with no dependents will get very
little, plus you may have to forfeit any assets, such as a car. Also,
you may be required to work p/t in city parks and document your
job-hunting on your off days. Not a good retirement plan.
Better to try hitting the jackpot with a lawsuit. Trucking companies
have good insurance. Stand on a highway overpass, when you see a truck
barreling towards you in the left lane, jump!
hth
Don Klipstein
I favor "tort reform" since I am an American paying big motor vehicle
insurance bills!
I blame the Democrats for "breaking things in this area" and I also
blame the Republicans for not fixing thingsd when they had ability to do
so!
If you want your insurance bills to decrease, I say vote against lawyers
not only for President but also for both houses of Congress!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Al Bundy
It sounds like you may be singing the loser's anthem before the game
even starts. Perhaps more facts would allow people to offer more
helpful ideas. Are you disabled, lazy, alien or whatever? Each
situation could point to different answers. Of course, we know you are
asking for a friend.
Jeff
>
> Bruce C. Miller wrote:
>> What US state can a single male with no kids collect the most welfare?
>> Food stamps and other perks are a plus as well. Another consideration
>> is any maximum limits on the amount of time you can receive payments
>> or any red tape they put you through to get it.
>>
>> Or, if anyone knows of a state-by-state comparison of welfare
>> benefits, I'd also be interested in that too.
>>
>> Thanks for any info.
>
> It sounds like you may be singing the loser's anthem before the game
> even starts. Perhaps more facts would allow people to offer more
> helpful ideas. Are you disabled, lazy, alien or whatever?
I strongly suspect he is trolling to stir up a pet peeve. It's a red
meat issue.
Jeff
Jeff
> Finally, a topic Rod Speed can talk about.
When is the last time you posted *anything* that wasn't about Rod Speed?
Jeff
Bob F
"Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message news:ge5iha$5el$1...@news.datemas.de...
It is amazing, the lies that the republican voters will swallow. You just make
things up and state them as fact. Over and over. As if if you repeat them
enough, they will become real.
Bruce C. Miller
I checked CA's "Department of Social Services" website and according
to the latest pdf, a "single recipient" was getting $468/mo. Not bad
at all, especially if you don't live in the city. But, it doesn't say
what, if any, kind of red tape is involved, or any other stipulations.
Bruce C. Miller
No, not disabled. I'm just seeing what my options are, and how viable
an option going on welfare is as opposed to working.
There's a lot of overhead involved in having a job. Most people don't
factor this in as debits against their income, not to mention the time
and mental costs of working. I suspect if most people really thought
about it, they would realize how little they're actually left with at
the end of the day. Cashing a welfare check, on the other hand, is
100% profit (or almost, like in the case where you have to pretend to
be looking for a job).
The Real Bev
> Cashing a welfare check, on the other hand, is
> 100% profit (or almost, like in the case where you have to pretend to
> be looking for a job).
Unemployment insurance isn't free just because it's not a line item on
your paycheck. You paid for it, so there's no shame in collecting it.
--
Cheers,
Bev
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
This is Usenet. We *are* the trained body for dealing
with psychotics. -- A. Dingley
Coffee's For Closers
ff3757...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, bm3...@gmail.com
says...
Sorry to disappoint you, but, for your situation, welfare IS a
job. You can expect the county to put you to work, at the
minimum wage rate. Things like cleaning rubbish in public parks,
or cleaning buses and trains.
--
Want Privacy?
http://www.MinistryOfPrivacy.com/
clams_casino
Best state for welfare is obvious AK where wealth is redistributed from
the oil companies to every resident.
Best approach to maximizing welfare (receiving money from the
government) is getting $12k in tax-free healthcare by finding an
employer who provides healthcare and purchasing a home with tax
deductible interest / property taxes and later selling that home with
tax free gains - such subsidies far exceed anything you might get via
Medicare and/or rent subsidies.
Dennis
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>Best approach to maximizing welfare (receiving money from the
>government) is getting $12k in tax-free healthcare by finding an
>employer who provides healthcare and purchasing a home with tax
>deductible interest / property taxes and later selling that home with
>tax free gains - such subsidies far exceed anything you might get via
>Medicare and/or rent subsidies.
Again with your silly socialist blather.
One more time: keeping some of your own money is completely different
from being handed a share of someone else's money.
Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.
clams_casino
>On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:30:46 -0500, clams_casino
><PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Best approach to maximizing welfare (receiving money from the
>>government) is getting $12k in tax-free healthcare by finding an
>>employer who provides healthcare and purchasing a home with tax
>>deductible interest / property taxes and later selling that home with
>>tax free gains - such subsidies far exceed anything you might get via
>>Medicare and/or rent subsidies.
>>
>>
>
>Again with your silly socialist blather.
>
>One more time: keeping some of your own money is completely different
>from being handed a share of someone else's money.
>
>
>
>
Without my tax free healthcare, government subsidized housing and low
taxed unearned income, I'm not sure how I'd ever have put my kids
through college & still have been able to retire at 52.
(I'm still trying to find anyone who pays no taxes - not sure it's even
possible.)
Then again, according to the McCain / Republican $250K threshold for
middle class, I never realized I've lived my whole life in poverty.
jim mac
clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Bruce C. Miller wrote:
>
> >What US state can a single male with no kids collect the most welfare?
> >Food stamps and other perks are a plus as well. Another consideration
> >is any maximum limits on the amount of time you can receive payments
> >or any red tape they put you through to get it.
> >
> >Or, if anyone knows of a state-by-state comparison of welfare
> >benefits, I'd also be interested in that too.
> >
> >Thanks for any info.
> >
> >
>
>
> Best state for welfare is obvious AK where wealth is redistributed from
> the oil companies to every resident.
And we give it back to the oil companies, people in Fairbanks
are jumping for joy because fuel oil is under 3 dollars a gallon
and in smaller towns the cost is more then double. And a
9 month + heating season.
>
> Best approach to maximizing welfare (receiving money from the
> government) is getting $12k in tax-free healthcare by finding an
> employer who provides healthcare and purchasing a home with tax
> deductible interest / property taxes and later selling that home with
> tax free gains - such subsidies far exceed anything you might get via
> Medicare and/or rent subsidies.
--
spell 'usenet' backward for e-mail
Rod Speed
> Bruce C. Miller wrote
>> Cashing a welfare check, on the other hand, is 100% profit (or almost, like in the case where you have to pretend to
>> be looking for a job).
> Unemployment insurance isn't free just because it's not a line item on
> your paycheck. You paid for it, so there's no shame in collecting it.
Plenty of shame in choosing to bludge on welfare when you can work.
Rod Speed
> Dennis wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:30:46 -0500, clams_casino
>> <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Best approach to maximizing welfare (receiving money from the
>>> government) is getting $12k in tax-free healthcare by finding an
>>> employer who provides healthcare and purchasing a home with tax
>>> deductible interest / property taxes and later selling that home
>>> with tax free gains - such subsidies far exceed anything you might
>>> get via Medicare and/or rent subsidies.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Again with your silly socialist blather.
>>
>> One more time: keeping some of your own money is completely different
>> from being handed a share of someone else's money.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Without my tax free healthcare, government subsidized housing and low
> taxed unearned income, I'm not sure how I'd ever have put my kids
> through college & still have been able to retire at 52.
> (I'm still trying to find anyone who pays no taxes - not sure it's even possible.)
Corse its possible. Grow what you eat, ride a bicycle that you got free from Craig's list etc.
Dennis
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:30:46 -0500, clams_casino
>><PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Best approach to maximizing welfare (receiving money from the
>>>government) is getting $12k in tax-free healthcare by finding an
>>>employer who provides healthcare and purchasing a home with tax
>>>deductible interest / property taxes and later selling that home with
>>>tax free gains - such subsidies far exceed anything you might get via
>>>Medicare and/or rent subsidies.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Again with your silly socialist blather.
>>
>>One more time: keeping some of your own money is completely different
>>from being handed a share of someone else's money.
>>
>>
>
>Without my tax free healthcare, government subsidized housing and low
>taxed unearned income, I'm not sure how I'd ever have put my kids
>through college & still have been able to retire at 52.
Well done.
And yet there are those who maintain that politicians and bureaucrats
would have known how to spend that money better than you did. What
nonsense!
>(I'm still trying to find anyone who pays no taxes - not sure it's even
>possible.)
>
>Then again, according to the McCain / Republican $250K threshold for
>middle class, I never realized I've lived my whole life in poverty.
Take heart -- to hear Obama/Biden tell it, the threshold has already
dropped through $200K and is now down to only $150K. At that rate, I
bet by early next year lots of folks will be rich!
William Souden
Does not apply to you,welfare boy, as you are unemployable.
>
The Real Bev
There's a difference in the US. Not in Oz?
--
Cheers,
Bev
***********************************************
"A complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working." -- Tanuki
Marsha
>>reason in any state for an unlimited amount of time.
>
>
> It is amazing, the lies that the republican voters will swallow. You just make
> things up and state them as fact. Over and over. As if if you repeat them
> enough, they will become real.
>
It may be a bit of an exageration, I'll give you that, but not much.
History repeats itself.
Marsha/Ohio
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> The Real Bev <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Bruce C. Miller wrote
>>>> Cashing a welfare check, on the other hand, is 100% profit (or almost, like in the case where you have to pretend
>>>> to be looking for a job).
>>> Unemployment insurance isn't free just because it's not a line item
>>> on your paycheck. You paid for it, so there's no shame in collecting it.
>> Plenty of shame in choosing to bludge on welfare when you can work.
> There's a difference in the US.
He said that that is what he wants to do.
William Souden
> The Real Bev <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> The Real Bev <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Bruce C. Miller wrote
>
>>>>> Cashing a welfare check, on the other hand, is 100% profit (or almost, like in the case where you have to pretend
>>>>> to be looking for a job).
>
>>>> Unemployment insurance isn't free just because it's not a line item
>>>> on your paycheck. You paid for it, so there's no shame in collecting it.
Actually the entire tab is paid by the employers. Recipients must
bay taxes on those benefits.
Ken Lay
Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> One more time: keeping some of your own money is completely different
> from being handed a share of someone else's money.
Not so much when others are forced to pay your way.
--
Everybody lies. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney just suck at it.
Seerialmom
> "Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in messagenews:ge5iha$5el$1...@news.datemas.de...
You mean like this G.W. Bush quote from 2005? "See, in my line of
work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for
the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
From: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-propaganda.htm
Seerialmom
Why not have an accident that causes a major disability? That way
you'll collect a bigger check and won't have the automatic "stigma" of
welfare. Or you could just get one of those cardboard signs that says
"homeless/hungry" and stake your claim on a busy high-end neighborhood
intersection. From what I've seen in various news stories some of
those guys take in hundreds a day. Most goes into their arm of
course.