Skip to main content

click to enlarge

Follow me on Twitter @MattBors and order a copy of my latest book, Life Begins At Incorporation.

Originally posted to Comics on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 06:50 AM PST.

Also republished by In Support of Labor and Unions and Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Cuz that is what GOPper Reps do for $$ (12+ / 0-)

      they get an inside track to the gravy ladled out by corporate welfare receivers to keep the free money spigots open wide...
      they choose the non-job of being a well rewarded right wing tool... and blame people who want jobs but who cannot find any for needing help...

      These hypocrites have what amounts to welfare and unemployment for reps and other elected officials who do not actually do much in the line of work they are supposedly in office to do representing voters... and the more they doe their patrons bidding their "benefits" pay better and last longer.

      Great projection... their own easy street, easy money detour is invisible to their conscious mind... but they think they see that pattern elsewhere and point fingers...

      Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

      by IreGyre on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 09:03:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Did I miss the reference to Republicans (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BriarRose, PSzymeczek

      in the strip?

      Are Dems putting up a real fight on this issue?

    •  You Laugh - My Niece's Dad and Brother (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Think in EXACTLY this way! My niece, who's been on Unemployment (as have I) since June when her last job fired her for no discernible reason and her Employment service stopped returning her calls, called us in tears over hearing her own family diss people on Unemployment in this way….

  •  There's one 'disconnect' in your Repub vision; (51+ / 0-)

    The people in the cartoon are white! Every good R knows that lazy takers living off government welfare are ONLY varying shades of brown, NEVER white!

    Momma always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun. But Momma - that's where the fun is!

    by Fordmandalay on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 07:07:58 AM PST

    •  I logged in just to say that (7+ / 0-)

      In the republican view, the people in the comic would be black or brown. Cause those are the lazy people who are milking the government, according to them.

    •  Was this cartoon this insidious on purpose? (8+ / 0-)

      ..of COURSE they're white - see, if it were the REAL 'lazy takers living off government', then.. well then..  
      But this is the 'success story' of "getting up and doing what needs to be done" (with apologies to Garrison Keillor).
      Having them be white, and yes, just simply going out and getting really good paying jobs, perfectly fits the GOP brain.

      Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

      by notKeith on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 08:50:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually there are a lot of whites on ... (9+ / 0-)

      food stamps.  I see them commonly in the grocery stores.  In fact even in the South there are a number of very poor whites.

      Nationally 36.6% of food stamp recipients in 2011 were white, 22.8% were black. I suspect many of these worked for fast food chains and big box stores. See:  

      •  I know this is about unemployment insurance.... (6+ / 0-)

        but I think the principle still holds - many of the jobs those people living off of unemployment insurance can get (if they can get any at all) will still leave them unable to pay the bills.  What we need right now is something the equivalent of the WPA or CCC, which at the same time could repair our infrastructure.

        •  higher minimum wages and more pro-unionizing... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Desert Scientist

          ...federal policies would help as much, or more.
          The former really ought to be doable, even with the current psychotic House Publicans, given the breadth, depth, and intensity of support for it.  (Even a majority of Publican voters nationally favor raising it, if not by as much as Dem's and the un-partied.)
          Much of the latter should be under the purview of the executive branch, and might not even require Congressional action.
          Very disappointing how little we've seen on those fronts so far. Here's hoping for better in '14!

      •  Many whites are poor in the U.S. (4+ / 0-)

        It is a mistake to cite figures that show close percentages of blacks to whites on any entitlement because of the big difference between the number of blacks and whites in the U.S.  The right would jump all over those kinds of figures unless they were percentages WITHIN the two "communities".  The percentage of blacks in the black community on food stamps and other entitlements is far larger than whites in the white community.  What we have to work for is how to get that percentage figure within the black community lowered significantly.  The white population and white politicians are comfortable with these figures, and therein lies the problem.

        •  Oh I am aware of the percentages. (6+ / 0-)

          However, I think it is a worse mistake on the Right to show the typical welfare queen as black.  The whites (or blacks) on welfare are not statistics, they are people-some good and some bad and most in between.

          It reminds me of an argument made against spending money on rehabilitation when there was a new youth correctional facility being built.  The idea was that there was only a 40% success rate for rehabilitation.  My argument at the time was that if we could get a 40% rate of reclaiming lost lives and making them into productive lives, society was still benefiting. The Republicans wanted 100% or nothing.

          Percentages are not the whole story!

          •  If percentages aren't the whole story (0+ / 0-)

            The, they shouldn't be the reason for posting something here on Daily Kos.  Thanks.

          •  By that argument they should shut down prisons. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Desert Scientist

            As they do nothing to stop crime or decrease recidivism.
            Been looking at the stats recently and found the USA is on a slight downturn on incarceration rates overall for about the last 3 years. Though recidivism following typical deviation +/- a few percent remains fairly constant in those numbers for over a century of recorded history globally, with rates having a correlation with age of offenders. It was interesting statistically given younger offenders were also more likely to offend more frequently in the same period. There's probably further correlation to be made with regards to personal financial stability with regards to these rates and such. Still rehabilitation works better than the shaming policies of people like Arpaio going off historical data. I don't see the UK still practicing transportation due to rampant prison overcrowding as one example.
            Plus like you said it 40% reclamation beats the typical outgoing rate, when recidivism is approximately 40% across the globe still anyway that's a good way to prevent escalation of the problems we're seeing already with approximately 9,000,000 prison inmates globally, and around half in US prisons.

  •  You Got Money For Fake Mustaches (10+ / 0-)

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 08:05:16 AM PST

  •  I am reminded when debating predatory lending (16+ / 0-)

    Wingnuts say it's the fault of the home buyers. My response, as follows:

    More than 70% of all US home loans over a period of six years were suddenly and spontaneously affected.  What happened?  Did 70% of all home buyers suddenly become irresponsible slackers overnight?

    Because the core premises are virtually identical, the US was built just as much on Islamic principles as Christian.

    by thenekkidtruth on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 08:15:11 AM PST

    •  "suddenly and spontaneously affected" (0+ / 0-)

      Affected by what? My 30-year fixed loan didn't suddenly self destruct. Do you mean that ARMs readjusted? I'd imagine a lot of 3/1 and 5/1 ARMs would readjust in a given six-year period.

      •  I mean new mortgage customers (13+ / 0-)

        who, after all, were the ones the banks were preying on.  

        You clearly weren't affected, but I was.  I was ready to buy a home, but from 2002-2005 I couldn't bring my business attorney a proposed loan document from literally any source that got his approval.  He told me that I'd be crazy to sign any of them.

        I finally gave up until dear old dad died in 2009 and bought his place cash instead.

        Because the core premises are virtually identical, the US was built just as much on Islamic principles as Christian.

        by thenekkidtruth on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 08:47:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm still not getting it (0+ / 0-)

          You said that "more than 70% of all US home loans" were affected. You clarified that you mean new loans. Okay, 70% of new US home loans were affected -- by what?

          •  New home loans, then (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JeffW, rbird, Laconic Lib, smartalek

            My definition is that 70% of those loans were liar loans.  Did you know that the term "liar loans" was introduced to our lexicon by the Banksters themselves once (the very few) investigations got underway?

            If it's a liar loan, it's been clearly demonstrated that this is only a small part of the problem.  You can fully expect balloon payment structures, draconic penalties for even a single late payment, loan bundling, being told that the only way to restructure your loan is to default on it, then refusing to restructure it anyway, and deliberate obfuscation when trying to work with the bank after the loan was signed.  If it's a liar loan, that's good enough for me - the only good faith involved in the transaction is going to be on the buyer's side.  And I'll tell you that during that period, they were virtually all liar loans.  Banksters were trying to put you into a liar loan even if you had stellar credit so they wouldn't have to.

            There is more than enough evidence that these loans were syndicated, and it's likely the collusion went all the way up to Bush himself.  

            And the wingnut mantra, "read the loan proposal", isn't the answer.  I know from personal experience that the one-line clause that allows banks to bundle and resell your mortgage to China is very carefully crafted so it doesn't look anything like a bundling clause.

            From 2nd quarter 2006 to 2nd quarter 2007, the increase in foreclosure filings on subprime loans with adjustable rates was 90%.  I'm using a conservative number by claiming only 70%.

            Lastly, this is all old news, so why are you fighting me on it?  The best I can tell is that you're trying to say that since you weren't victimized then predatory lending wasn't a thing.  Or something?

            I don't know how much you've gone one-on-one with wingnuts, but you're not in a position to espouse things in the form of extended rambling verbal diaries when you do.  So if I correct my comment to delimit loans only the "new mortgages", as above, will that satisfy you?  Or would you have me hurdle more details and technicalities in my single-line comeback?

            Because the core premises are virtually identical, the US was built just as much on Islamic principles as Christian.

            by thenekkidtruth on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:09:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lots of words (0+ / 0-)

              You used something that sounded like data to make a point. Let me remind you of what it was:

              "More than 70% of all US home loans over a period of six years were suddenly and spontaneously affected."

              Even after hundreds of words, I can't figure out what you're talking about. "The increase in foreclosure filings on subprime loans with adjustable rates was 90%" doesn't answer the question because that doesn't say anything about how many loans there were, how many were ARMs, how many were actually foreclosed, and what percentage of total "new" loans they were. All that says is that a lot more adjustable rate loans were foreclosed on than were foreclosed on previously. Let me try to get you to clarify clearly: Are you saying that after the mortgage crisis, 70% of people applying for home loans couldn't get them? Or are you saying that 70% of all mortgages that were in good standing before the crisis were suddenly not in good standing? If it's the latter, I'm trying to figure out what the crisis had to do with that. Those adjustable mortgages were going to adjust eventually.

              I'm arguing because I'm tired of numbers being thrown around without context, as if they explain something. You posted your two-sentence response to wingnuts -- and I'm not one, and I know what it's like to argue with one -- as if that should shut up a wingnut. It might. But what does it mean?

              And don't complain about me using an anecdote as an example when you did exactly the same thing with your own experience. In my case, I took out an ARM in 2005 because of my middlin' credit. In 2007, before it adjusted, I refinanced to a 30-year fixed because I didn't think interest rates would go down any further and I didn't want to risk being adjusted upward. The mortgage broker tried to get me into another ARM and I said "no." Problem solved.

          •  Obviously this is a very involved issue (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            diggerspop, Catsmeat, Laconic Lib

            And explaining the 70% number would take a ridiculous amount of writing... be highly debatable... and not really move anyone from their perch.  We could talk about the fact that loans were not being approved, housing values were plummeting, or a million other things- I could even bring up that foreclosures only jumped a statistically insignificant 0.4%, from 2% to about 2.4% between 2008 and 2009, and then question why such a small change would trigger such a huge housing re-evaluation in both prices and loan requirements.  I could also point out that a decent portion of these new foreclosures were investment properties, and not the primary resident of stupid poor people.

            But here's a different way of looking at "blame":

            If you're a bank entrusted with billions of dollars of investor money, and they expect a return on said investment generated by interest on mortgages.... Why would you loan money to people without proper proof of income?  Why would you loan money to people without proper collateral?  Why would you give someone an ARM that you know they can afford today, but you know from their income history they will be unable to afford when the ARM readjusted in 3 years?  Why would you loan out $300,000 on a house that is clearly overvalued and was only worth $200,000 just 3 years ago?

            Your ENTIRE JOB is to know the housing market and to make sure that your investors get paid.  How are you not at fault for making all of these bad loans?

            Even if we pretend that everyone that went into default was a moron paying way too much for a house he/she couldn't afford, we know for a fact that they were carpenters, cooks, doctors, and salesmen.  They weren't educated on economics, housing, or banking.  As such, their ignorance is somewhat forgivable.  But these bankers had college degrees IN this industry, spent their entire lives working IN this industry, and worked more than 40 hours a week IN this industry.  What is their excuse?  How do they not get the lion's share of the blame?

            •  It was the incentives (0+ / 0-)

              The mortgage brokers loaned to people without proof of income because of how they were compensated. They were allowed to turn around and sell the mortgages in packages as securities. Let me be clear: This should never, ever, have been allowed to happen. So there was an incentive for them to write as many mortgages as possible. That doesn't mean that anyone had to buy those mortgages.

              So that's why some of us blame homeowners -- in cases when there wasn't outright fraud on the part of lenders (and there was some). The brokers didn't care if people could pay back the loans or not, so saying "THEY should have known better" is completely irrelevant. The borrowers, on the other hand, should have been more circumspect about buying what is probably the largest asset they will ever own. People who make $50K a year shouldn't be buying $500,000 houses. I'm sorry they didn't know that, or what the word "adjustable" means, but that doesn't excuse their part of this. Nobody had a gun to their head when signing the loan documents.

  •  Thanks for solving that pesky (11+ / 0-)

    unemployment issue!

    "Onward through the fog!" - Oat Willie

    by rocksout on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 08:25:59 AM PST

  •  I know an equivalent argument! (6+ / 0-)

    1) Steal Underwear
    2) ????????
    3) PROFIT!!!

  •  By the same logic (22+ / 0-)

    Denying people health insurance will prevent them from getting sick or in accidents.

    I don't know what consciousness is or how it works, but I like it.

    by SocioSam on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 08:33:40 AM PST

  •  Top hat, monocle, and no shirt! LOL n/t (6+ / 0-)

    Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

    by Dirtandiron on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 08:35:26 AM PST

  •  my thought (9+ / 0-)

    You need "countervailing forces" in order for capitalism to work, when St Ronnie destroyed PATCO (air traffic controllers union) he succeeded in emasculating unions--and their political power (donations).  Now the best teat available to pols is big business--and they're sucking on it.  Corporations have been doing swell with a constipated congress-- and continue to blame the victims for their misdeeds.  Until we have union strength equal to that of Koch and friends, we'll continue to blame the poor, the immigrant, and "those" people.
    Sadly, Trumka ain't been the answer.  We need union disruption, union victories, mass unionization of the new tech industries.

    Actions speak louder than petitions.

    by melvynny on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 08:40:23 AM PST

  •  Caviar? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, whaddaya, Dirtandiron, Idaho07

    If poor people ate caviar the GOP would push to tax it or make it illegal.  No, everyone knows that people use their snap benefits to buy crack, but the local corner market rings it up as caviar.

    Also, jobs are not the concern, which is why the conservatives don't think about jobs.  Everyone in the US has enough money to survive, with the food banks easily supplying sufficient food and the emergency room providing health care and the schools providing free meals and air conditioning and shelter for kids.  No people just need to learn to live within their means, and those means are just smaller if you are not working.  After all, if you are not working, you don't need clothes, or to bathe, or transportation, or really any of those luxuries.

    As far as the stole, I have seen that prices for used real fur stoles are quite low in resale shops as few in the developed world really wear them.  I hear that prices are on the way up with increased demand in Asia.  Since the characters int the strip are white it is conceivable that they would have used their extra cash to buy a stole.  Of course a black person would have been arrested or told they could not afford it.

    •  Why miss chance to be invasive? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dirtandiron, happymisanthropy
      If poor people ate caviar the GOP would push to tax it or make it illegal.
      Or require urine/blood tests for caviar consumption in order to qualify or maintain benefits.

      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
      "Shared sacrifice!" said the spider to the fly.—Me

      by KingBolete on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 09:15:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yup. Total conservative delusion. (4+ / 0-)

      The cartoon is fine snark on a long lasting and popular conservative meme.
      There were some reports, which may have been spurious, that welfare recipients were buying steak and caviar with their welfare checks, and this has been a talking point ever since.
      Right along with We Hardworking Taxpayers are paying for their cable TV and all the other luxuries the bums are getting for free on my dime.

      The further right the person is, the more they completely believe this is the truth. Only they, the conservatives, are hard working, moral, upright, Christian, heterosexual, monogamous, educated, and have a brain.
      Black folks are the worst offenders, but everyone else is a Communist bum. No one but them wants to work for a living, and no one but them is fit to hold a job.
      Since they won't get a job, we will force them. Get a job or starve. We won't pay your bills anymore. That's exactly how the conservatives think and truly believe.

      The depth of this delusion is profound. The cartoon caught it completely.

      Right many are called, and damn few are chosen.

      by Idaho07 on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 11:52:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Steak (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rbird, Laconic Lib, Idaho07, MHB, olegar
        There were some reports, which may have been spurious, that welfare recipients were buying steak and caviar with their welfare checks, and this has been a talking point ever since.
        The Trentonian newspaper here in NJ, back in the 90s had a picture of a welfare family eating steak, but you had to read to the very end of the story to find out the newspaper bought them the dinner.

        Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

        by Dirtandiron on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 12:39:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'd like to see a Venn diagram between the brains (3+ / 0-)

    mentioned above and those who don't accept evolution or climate change. There'd be a lot of overlap.

  •  I think the exception decides the rule (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, Dirtandiron, smartalek

    There is no doubt that there are people that draw unemployment and other "entitlements" (unemployment isn't really an entitlement but repubs don't seem to realize that) do scam the system.  When repubs see that or hear about that, they automatically assume that all unemployed people just stay on the public dole because they "don't want to work in the first place".  But, offer an unemployed person a decent job and see if he/she doesn't jump at the chance to take it.  There's more to this than just some exceptions that are out there.  No one lives like they truly want to on unemployment.  It is not our culture and it certainly is not something that is rampant in our country.

    Get a clue, repubs.

  •  Much like the lower taxes brings in more (4+ / 0-)

    revenue argument.

    "We cut taxes to zero and now the money comes pouring in!"

    "Oh look. A flying pig."

    And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

    by Pale Jenova on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:21:00 AM PST

    •  Well adjusting tax rates can increase revenue flow (0+ / 0-)

      However (and note this is my personal opinion and experience), it tends to work more as intended on the lower income earners (LIE). When you have less financial pressure as a LIE you're more likely to spend money than save (not that most wouldn't like to but I'll continue), largely since there are things you'll want and/or need you will spend what you've got on when you can afford to, as income increases spending doesn't seem to typically increase all that much per person overall with regards to the necessities, until we reach a point where people are receiving incomes at such a level they don't actually need to save, they're receiving more per day then many people make in a year and in some cases at least paying less in actual taxation. Now when taxation is increased on the LIE you see people struggle and fail to make ends meet, leading to higher rates of illness (both physical and mental), financial breakdowns, and an increase in the rates of suicides in people who really can't cope any longer.
      The idea of trickle down economics falls on it's arse largely because those people at the top don't need to spend very much of their income to actually get everything they need and sit on the rest. While LIE spend even when they don't want to because they lack the choice (I got a stimulus "bonus" back when the economy went to pot here, it went onto utilities bills and that was a major trend here people paying debts). And it's those regular little transactions that tend to drive economies since if you buy paper from a supply store, they then have to go through their restocking process, the money doesn't just end up in one pocket, and a percentage of that goes to the government through taxes.

    •  Yeah, I think that's called the "Laughable Curve". (0+ / 0-)
  •  Well, it makes sense (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smartalek, wood61

    all those people suddenly became lazy at the same time the economy collapsed, they can suddenly become industrious again if they had to.

    Politics means controlling the balance of economic and institutional power. Everything else is naming post offices.

    by happymisanthropy on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:32:26 AM PST

  •  unchecked capitalism (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron, rbird, Laconic Lib, smartalek

    Lets look at an economic ideology of survival of the fittest Reagan economics and many take to it like a duck takes to water and then this occurs with unemployment benefits and people wonder why.

    In a society of individuals systemic thinking is practically nonexistent. blaming individuals for a systemic economic ideology of selfishness says much about the American society.

    When communism failed in 1989 in the soviet union, Americans cheered and I stated that capitalism was next. they jeered at that remark. maybe not so much jeering now.

    Individualism is ego centered and capitalism relies on an ego centered "I got mine" society.

    •  There is hope... (0+ / 0-)

      IIRC (not guaranteed, sadly, given my memory), about 40% of Americans in the 18-34 bracket now favor socialism over capitalism.
      Perhaps my friend who voted for Reagan in 1980 because he believed it would bring the revolution was right after all...

  •  Ah, but somebody once found a receipt in a grocery (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib, MHB

    store parking lot that showed that someone had bought steak and lobster with food stamps. The guy tried to buy them at food stamp prices and resell them at retail, which would have gotten him the princely sum of probably about $10, assuming the poor stooge didn't get arrested for fraud before pulling it off. But nothing, I repeat NOTHING will convince your cranky right wing friend who has forwarded you this story at least ten times that each and every food stamp recipient isn't eating steak and lobster every night.

    •  If the lie is told often enough (Even God) (0+ / 0-)

      11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

      12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.  II Thesalonians 2:11-12

      The "Never Wrong" conservatives will  tell these lies over and over, repeating the lies of other liars to bolster their "rightness" , till the day they have "damned" themselves into oblivion.

      I fervently hope, as humans, we never escape from this earth to spread our bigotry elsewhere.

      by olegar on Thu Jan 02, 2014 at 11:31:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hmm (0+ / 0-)

      There's times locally when steak is the cheapest option available to me personally as far as meat goes (though it's admittedly rare). I tend to buy a lot of beef (by percentage over the year) since that tends to be the cheapest available option, when chicken sells for 10+ per lb, along with lamb and pork. Occasionally shellfish is cheaper than other alternatives (though I've no idea what the average price for lobster is locally since I'm loath to buy seafood this far inland). I couldn't see it being a regular thing for anyone on foodstamps regardless (beyond knowing the amounts people get for foodstamps don't really cover the nutritional costs of a family for a week). I'm not a big fan of steak personally (give me a couple of pounds of mince I can do more with it), and never eaten lobster. It sounds like they scrimped for a bit to have a special occasion (assuming the alleged receipt was real and not a fake). If my kid asked for a surf & turf special I'd probably put away towards it too for his birthday as an example.
      By the admission of the administrative staff on SNAP there's a low level of abuse of the program which is usually caught quickly. They assert it's low and I have to believe them knowing the number of hoops people have to jump through to get on the program, actually the administrators attest that they were having to turn away even a lot of eligible applicants because they lack the budget to help everyone even before the most recent cuts.

  •  Unemployment (0+ / 0-)

    Perfect.  Can we use this cartoon on flyers?  Is there an acknowledgment/credit we need to include?

    Reply to:

  •  I remember a Doonesbury in the 1970s (0+ / 0-)

    During the "stagflation recession" following the Arab oil embargo (BEFORE Jimmy Carter was elected, Rush! BEFORE!), the right-wing character B.D. was looking at the help wanted ads in the newspaper, and saying "I don't see any reason for people to be unemployed!  Look at all the ads in the paper!"  He handed the paper to Zonker, who responded, "Why don't all those lazy chemical engineers just get a job?"  (This quote is from memory, so it may not be verbatim.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site