Someone explain this to me?

[Sidewinder]

So tell us again how come we have poverty in the US?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ty_665160.html

We're spending $168/day/household that is below the poverty line. That's according to the Congressional Budget Office, and is MORE than enough to pull each and every such household ABOVE THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE US.

[Seedy]

Our highly efficient government at work, what else? Bunch of lowlife lazyass cocksuckers

[i'va biggen]

Are you on SS seedy?

[Randy4Candy]

1. Some people are lazy, but not as many as many say
2. Some people are cocksuckers, but they don't know how to manage money
3. Some people are sick
4. Some people are old
5. Some people have too many children
6. Some people were sucking dick or betting the farm on their athletic ability in middle and high school instead of paying attention
7. Some people are stupid
8. Some people had rather hire someone in China or Maylasia than someone in the US
9. Some people just don't get it
10. Some people know all of these above things and don't give a damn

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Does that $168 a day come with a happy ending??

Just askin....

[Seedy]

No there is no happy ending, those of us hard working, tax paying americans, are getting it shoved up our ass. But the libtards here like various things inserted up their rectums.

[LexusLover]

Like many "programs" (including private organizations) I suspect that the $168 "per day" includes the "costs" of administration of the programs, which is the vast majority of the expenditure. In other words ... government employees on the taxpayers' tit..... so "they" are in the "non-welfare" column.

[Sidewinder]

Yes, of course the $168/day includes the "administrative" costs. That's the point. We're allegedly spending all this money to "fight poverty", but we're really spending it doing NOTHING.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

Yes, of course the $168/day includes the "administrative" costs. That's the point. We're allegedly spending all this money to "fight poverty", but we're really spending it doing NOTHING.

I agree, politically and economically. Others, obviously, will not, because in their minds they can justify spending $150 a day passing out $18 and then following up with further investigations and paper work to assure that the recipient of the $18 "deserved it" and "spent it" on one of the "restricted uses."

But, again, IMO, that IS the point.

It provides a number of jobs from paper pushers to investiators, and once those jobs are created with union protected benefits and status, the $18 needs to keep being passed out to justify the continuation of the employment of the paper pushers and investigators.

The "two-fer" in the deal is that the politicians who keep the $18 coming will get the votes of the recipients of the $18 and the paper pushers and investigators, and they get to "buy" their votes with taxpayers' money.

You think the dealer is gonna let the user go into business for himself?