1/3 Population of Puerto Rico Gets Food Stamps from U.S. Gov’t

[captain morgan]

Banks knew damn well that the building frenzy they created would overinflate the housing markets with people losing the shirts off their backs and thousand of contractors folding while in the end they get the houses and the all the construction equipment and all the land once held by developers. They are also the ones who are responsible for all those people being on welfare while they (banks) got bailed out and paid themselves bonuses for being asssholes of epic proportion.

The banks lost their asses as they put-up the vast majority of the cash on an over-inflated property.

Exactly how did they 'profit' from this?

Nope.

Yup

Of course there is blame to be shared. That doesn't change the fact that corporations got loads of cash from the taxpayers.

.. To bail-out the tax payers.

Why is this so hard for you to get?

LOL...re-read the quote. If you are going to quote me and try and make a smart-*** comment, maybe you should take the time to understand what you are quoting.

What you posted deserved that very comment.

Of course, everybody has their excuse....er...justifications for handouts.

.. Again, the tax payer... er... homeowner that assumed a mortgage that they couldn't service seemed to justify the risk in the first place... So, tell me, considering that the 'home owner' participated in the risks on this - mind you, didn't put up very much cash - yet positioned themselves to benefit, how is it that the home owner is absolved of any and all responsibility in your books?

Has octomom mismanaged millions of dollars?

Probably not that far off considering the equation that she will be on 'assistance' for decades to come let alone the Medicaid costs in the healthcare (and deliveries) of her vast brood of offspring

Look...I get it. Your fine with corporate bailouts but hate welfare moms. I truly do get it. My initial response was to a poster that seemed to indicate that corporate welfare did not exist. Even a conservative pretender like you has to at least acknowledge that it does. You do acknowledge that much?

Nope... You simply don't get it.

 

[petros]

The banks lost their asses as they put-up the vast majority of the cash on an over-inflated property.

Exactly how did they 'profit' from this?

What cash? If they had cash they wouldn't have had to get bailed out for their liabilities.

 

[captain morgan]

Investors money and fed-backed debt to name a couple

 

[petros]

So now you're saying it wasn't theirs that they lost? You really don't know what went down do you?

They were floating overinflated mortgages using other overinflated mortgages to back new ones. They lost NOTHING.

 

[Cannuck]

So, tell me, considering that the 'home owner' participated in the risks on this - mind you, didn't put up very much cash - yet positioned themselves to benefit, how is it that the home owner is absolved of any and all responsibility in your books?

For the sake of argument, let's assume the "home owner" is 100% responsible. That makes the "home owner 100% responsible for the corporate welfare bailout...which did exist as much as it bothers you to admit.

Nope... You simply don't get it.

Oh, but I do.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

"To save a fool from his folly the gods themselves contend in vain."
--Friedrich Schiller

 

[captain morgan]

So now you're saying it wasn't theirs that they lost? You really don't know what went down do you?

They were floating overinflated mortgages using other overinflated mortgages to back new ones. They lost NOTHING.

Let's review, shall we?

The eeviiiillllll corporations (in this case, the banks) are comprised of 'shareholders' with the 'shareholders' monies used to back stop the mortgages that they underwrite in addition to the Feds back stopping of the mortgages that are also comprised of individuals called 'Tax Payers'... (And yes, I know that the deposits of Joe Q Public are also used to an extent.)

The eeviiilllll banks are simply a corporate structure that represents individuals and/or other eeviilllll corporate interests (that are in turn, comprised of individuals).... So yes, the money and future obligations are entirely that of 'the Bank' and all those that it represents

... But, in the end, it is the BANK that is ultimately on the hook, unless of course you are suggesting that individuals forced into foreclosure are somehow responsible for the balance of their lives.

So, what do you think are the ramifications of allowing a failing bank to slip into receivership?

Any thoughts on this?

For the sake of argument, let's assume the "home owner" is 100% responsible. That makes the "home owner 100% responsible for the corporate welfare bailout...which did exist as much as it bothers you to admit.

Ummmm, the 'home owner' IS 100% responsible for the financing that they agree to.

Oh, but I do.

Not even close, man

 

[hunboldt]

Let's review, shall we?

The eeviiiillllll corporations (in this case, the banks) are comprised of 'shareholders' with the 'shareholders' monies used to back stop the mortgages that they underwrite in addition to the Feds back stopping of the mortgages that are also comprised of individuals called 'Tax Payers'... (And yes, I know that the deposits of Joe Q Public are also used to an extent.)

The eeviiilllll banks are simply a corporate structure that represents individuals and/or other eeviilllll corporate interests (that are in turn, comprised of individuals).... So yes, the money and future obligations are entirely that of 'the Bank' and all those that it represents

... But, in the end, it is the BANK that is ultimately on the hook, unless of course you are suggesting that individuals forced into foreclosure are somehow responsible for the balance of their lives.

So, what do you think are the ramifications of allowing a failing bank to slip into receivership?

Any thoughts on this?



Ummmm, the 'home owner' IS 100% responsible for the financing that they agree to.



Not even close, man

While it has not happened in Canada since 1921 with a chartered bank, the Home bankfailure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Bank

Thsi lead to the rapid spread of the Credit Union movement. and the foundign of the Alberta treasury branches.

so one wouldl assume the answer to your query would be the DOMINANCE of Credit Unions for future consumer financing.

 

[Cannuck]

Ummmm, the 'home owner' IS 100% responsible for the financing that they agree to.

Is it fun to argue with yourself? It's plain to see that "who is responsible" is completely irrelevant to my assertion that corporate welfare occurs. Why do you need to make it about something else?

Not to get too sidetracked (that's your schtick) but, as a taxpayer, I could care less who is responsible for debt incurred. I am only interested in who is asking for my money.

The eeviiiillllll corporations ...The eeviiilllll banks...

Who said corporations and banks are evil?

So, what do you think are the ramifications of allowing a failing bank to slip into receivership?

Sounds like you are playing the Corporatist game that was in the link I provided. Do you think corporations should be protected from poor business decisions?

 

[hunboldt]

Gettign back to Puerto rico:
Puerto Rico's Battered Economy: The Greece Of The Caribbean? : NPR

 

[petros]

Before ragging on PR, what percentage of mainland USA is on food stamps and how much of every dollar given out has to be borrowed?

1 IN 5 households!!! 47,692,896 people are SNAPping it up with $0.43 of every dollar given out in food stamps is being borrowed from places like China.

 

[hunboldt]

Oh brother. Do you use lube when you're on CanCon?

More to the point, do you EVER stick to the topic or do you just serve up offensive comments ?

Before ragging on PR, what percentage of mainland USA is on food stamps and how much of every dollar given out has to be borrowed?

1 IN 5 households!!! 47,692,896 people are SNAPping it up with $0.43 of every dollar given out in food stamps is being borrowed from places like China.

food stamps are actually a pretty usefull program. Whiel some abuse takes place, it keeps a nation fed.

 

[petros]

it keeps a nation fed.

So does illegal immigrant labour and farm subsidies.

If people were paid minimum wage the prices of veggies would triple over night.

Just imagine if they paid them enough to live above the poverty line.

Nobody would be able to afford food.

If USDA didn't pay for diesel fuel for farmers to grow feed for critters, meat would triple in price.

How can a broke Gov* continue to subsidize food and rely the employment of illegal workers so heavily without it all crashing down in a very short time?


*Spastics please note this has been going on since the 60's and it's not an Obama thing.

 

[hunboldt]

So does illegal immigrant labour and farm subsidies.

If people were paid minimum wage the prices of veggies would triple over night.

Just imagine if they paid them enough to live above the poverty line.

Nobody would be able to afford food.

If USDA didn't pay for diesel fuel for farmers to grow feed for critters, meat would triple in price.

How can a broke Gov* continue to subsidize food and rely the employment of illegal workers so heavily without it all crashing down in a very short time?


*Spastics please note this has been going on since the 60's and it's not an Obama thing.

so do you have any solutions to offer up?

 

[captain morgan]

Is it fun to argue with yourself? It's plain to see that "who is responsible" is completely irrelevant to my assertion that corporate welfare occurs. Why do you need to make it about something else?

Good one... Nice to see that you move the goal posts whenever you are asked an inconvenient question.

Responsibility is completely contingent to this discussion, especially as it relates to this issue.

Not to get too sidetracked (that's your schtick) but, as a taxpayer, I could care less who is responsible for debt incurred. I am only interested in who is asking for my money.

Tough luck for you.

I can see that your assumptions are based on everyone in the world (excepting yourself) is expected to donate their time, resources and money in a charitable fashion.

Like I said earlier, I could care less if the banks went titters over this - but unlike you, I fully understand that allowing this to happen would undermine so much of the economy that the results would be devastating.

Within that statement is the answer to your naive assertions.

Sounds like you are playing the Corporatist game that was in the link I provided. Do you think corporations should be protected from poor business decisions?

I didn't even bother to read the link.. Why waste my time reading propaganda?

if people were paid minimum wage the prices of veggies would triple over night.

Just imagine if they paid them enough to live above the poverty line.

Nobody would be able to afford food.

If usda didn't pay for diesel fuel for farmers to grow feed for critters, meat would triple in price.

So, corporate welfare is OK in this instance?

 

[hunboldt]

Before ragging on PR, what percentage of mainland USA is on food stamps and how much of every dollar given out has to be borrowed?

1 IN 5 households!!! 47,692,896 people are SNAPping it up with $0.43 of every dollar given out in food stamps is being borrowed from places like China.

True- however, only 1 % of the program is 'diverted'.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While I would like to see some purchases , such as soft drinks, and prepared fast foods, off the program, the basic premise is sound. It provides the poor with resources to negotiate better rents, etc.

Sure- it is a stopgap, but what is the alturnative?

 

[EagleSmack]

Before ragging on PR, what percentage of mainland USA is on food stamps and how much of every dollar given out has to be borrowed?

1 IN 5 households!!! 47,692,896 people are SNAPping it up with $0.43 of every dollar given out in food stamps is being borrowed from places like China.

Oh heck yes Petros. Millions are on food stamps and increasing every day.

While I would like to see some purchases , such as soft drinks, and prepared fast foods, off the program, the basic premise is sound. It provides the poor with resources to negotiate better rents, etc.

Well Hunboldt... if you dared suggest this you would be called mean spirited, uncaring, a tea bagger and possibly even a racist.

More to the point, do you EVER stick to the topic or do you just serve up offensive comments ?

Well did you follow the thread completely? Why don't you start on page 1 and get back to me.

food stamps are actually a pretty usefull program. Whiel some abuse takes place, it keeps a nation fed.

Not just fed... it keeps them fat, lazy and unmotivated to earn.

 

[hunboldt]

Oh heck yes Petros. Millions are on food stamps and increasing every day.



Well Hunboldt... if you dared suggest this you would be called mean spirited, uncaring, a tea bagger and possibly even a racist.



Well did you follow the thread completely? Why don't you start on page 1 and get back to me.


Not just fed... it keeps them fat, lazy and unmotivated to earn.

Again- what do you replace it with? Direct cash payment leads to more abuse . I agree with severe penalites- onthe stores that abuse the redemption system. And the jusnk food part of the program can be pruned.

But the abuse is only one per cent. If the alturnative is strarving unemployed chucking rocks through the window to get somethng to steal & sell feed them.

 

[EagleSmack]

Again- what do you replace it with? Direct cash payment leads to more abuse .

Oh they get direct cash as well! Food stamps... well they are no longer food stamps as the people on food stamps did not want to discriminated against with a colored stamp book. It is an EBT card which looks like a credit card. At any rate, food stamps is just one of the many entitlements our "poor" receive. They get free cash to do pretty much whatever they want.

I agree with severe penalites- onthe stores that abuse the redemption system. And the jusnk food part of the program can be pruned.

Nah... because by punishing abusers it draws attention to the system that is rife with abuse.

But the abuse is only one per cent. If the alturnative is strarving unemployed chucking rocks through the window to get somethng to steal & sell feed them.

Let me get you some numbers on what you are calling the 1%.

Oh but they are not starving. Our poor are not only the most well fed poor in the world... they are the most obese class in the country!

But seriously... give us free food or we'll commit crimes... that is crazy. How about work?

 

[petros]

Is there a shortage of spaces for garden plots?