Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (346543)	8/13/2007 11:58:08 AM
From: SilentZ	Respond to of 1575421

>AND, if they've chosen a career with insufficient wages, who's responsibility is that? I'd say it's their responsibility. Yup... Paris Hilton chose a great line of work, joining the Lucky Sperm Club. I totally screwed myself up by neglecting to do the same. -Z

To: Elroy who wrote (346543)	8/13/2007 1:11:04 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575421

Well said Elroy, especially this statement: > Rather than be upset with their low wages the American should realize that that condition, which is so so difficult for them, is the envy of ~80% of the people on the planet. Personally, I think it's not just America who suffers from this mindset, but rather any first-world society that has passed its days of glory and moved into a post-modern mindset. Tenchusatsu

To: Elroy who wrote (346543)	8/16/2007 1:38:01 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1575421

AND, if they've chosen a career with insufficient wages, who's responsibility is that? I'd say it's their responsibility. At some point everyone in the US makes a decision of whether to pursue a career with greater wealth attached to it, which generally involved a higher level of education and training, or to take it easy with whatever education and training they already have, and settle into an easier regular pattern. Thanks Ayn Rand for sharing your important views with the rest of us. Clearly, these people are poor because they are slackers and want to be poor. They went about looking for a position that would insure their poverty; that they want to be poor because it makes them feel cool and they can complain all the time. Next we'll be hearing how the black race is the intermediary step between the white man and the monkey. What else did they tell you growing up that you bought into hook, line and sinker?

To: Elroy who wrote (346543)	8/16/2007 1:44:11 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1575421

According to A. Rand, they could choose to get food stamps but they prefer to go hungry. Study: Half of nation's poor don't get food stamps By Rob Hotakainen \| McClatchy Newspapers Tue, August 14, 2007 WASHINGTON — Half of the nation's eligible poor aren't getting the food stamps to which they're entitled, a study released Tuesday found. The District of Columbia had the highest participation rate in 2004, at 71.8 percent, while Missouri ranked first among the 50 states in getting food stamps to its low-income residents. Nevada ranked last among states, with 32 percent of its eligible residents getting food stamps. Overall, 50.2 percent of the nation’s qualified poor received food stamps in 2004, according to the study by the National Priorities Project, a nonprofit and nonpartisan research group that examines the local impact of federal budget policies. "We've got over 35 million people in this country struggling to get enough food to eat, and 50 percent of all low-income people are not receiving the benefit that is intended to alleviate this food insecurity," said Greg Speeter, the project’s executive director. "While the food-stamp program provides a vital service, clearly too many people are still going without." After Missouri, the states with the highest participation rates were Tennessee, Maine, West Virginia and Oklahoma. After Nevada, the states with the lowest participation rates were Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and Idaho. The food-stamp program, founded in 1964 and run by the Department of Agriculture, is the largest of the federal government’s food and nutrition programs. In 2004, the program cost $28.6 billion, or 1.2 percent of total federal spending, and served 23.2 million people, according to the study. In examining state participation rates, the authors of the study focused on county data for 2004, finding wide differences. The study found that a significant number of counties, 13.2 percent, had below-average percentages of low-income people participating in the program, even though they had above-average poverty rates. The authors cited many reasons for the disparities, including the stigma of government benefits, eligibility rules and lack of information about the benefits. Under the food-stamp program, a family is eligible for aid if its income is 130 percent of the poverty level. Nearly all of the states followed a national trend of increasing the number and percentage of low-income people participating in the food-stamp program in recent years. The study said that much of the increase was the result of changes in eligibility rules that took effect in 2002. And since 2004, all states are now using electronic benefits transfer systems, which allow food-stamp beneficiaries to appear to be using debit cards. Only three states — Hawaii, Rhode Island and Connecticut — had decreases in the proportion of low-income people participating in the program between 2000 and 2004. Percentage of low-income people receiving food-stamp benefits in 2004 by state, from low to high: United States - 50.2 1. Nevada - 32.3 2. Wyoming - 35.0 3. Utah - 35.2 4. Colorado - 36.6 5. Idaho - 38.7 6. New Jersey - 38.9 7. Wisconsin - 40.0 8. Kansas - 40.4 9. Maryland - 40.4 10. New Hampshire - 40.8 11. Massachusetts - 41.2 12. Florida - 43.2 13. Minnesota - 43.7 14. California - 44.2 15. Iowa - 44.4 16. Nebraska - 46.0 17. Rhode Island - 46.1 18. Arizona - 46.1 19. Connecticut - 46.2 20. Montana - 46.8 21. North Carolina - 47.1 22. Texas - 47.2 23. North Dakota - 47.3 24. Virginia - 47.5 25. New York - 47.5 26. South Dakota - 48.2 27. Washington - 50.0 28. Mississippi - 51.3 29. Alaska - 52.0 30. Alabama - 53.1 31. Georgia - 53.3 32. Pennsylvania - 53.3 33. Delaware - 53.7 34. Ohio - 53.7 35. Illinois - 55.1 36. Indiana - 55.2 37. New Mexico - 55.7 38. Vermont - 55.8 39. Michigan - 58.9 40. South Carolina - 59.3 41. Hawaii - 60.1 42. Arkansas - 60.6 43. Kentucky - 61.0 44. Louisiana - 64.6 45. Oregon - 64.7 46. Oklahoma - 65.1 47. West Virginia - 65.3 48. Maine - 67.1 49. Tennessee - 67.9 50. Missouri - 71.5 District of Columbia - 71.8 (Source: National Priorities Project) 2007 McClatchy Newspapers mcclatchydc.com