# Hungry? So BEG!



## QuickSilver (Aug 23, 2015)

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2011...eniors-should-turn-to-charity?detail=facebook




> A Senate subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, chaired by Sen. Bernie Sanders, held a hearing Tuesday on the “human toll and budget consequences” of senior hunger. Panelists shared tales of woe from older Americans unable to get enough food, and urged increased funding for nutrition programs under the Older Americans Act of 1965.





> This might have been non-controversial a few years ago, but not with the Tea Party in town. The hearing produced a fierce debate between Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, and Sen. Rand Paul, the prototypical Tea Partier, about whether the government should even perform simple tasks like feeding hungry senior citizens....
> 
> Mary Jane Koren, a geriatrician and vice-president of the Commonwealth Fund, noted that seniors often suffer health problems and are put in nursing homes after falling down. Poor nutrition leads to decreased muscle strength, meaning a higher chance of falling—and weaker seniors are more likely to be gravely injured in such a fall. Koren noted that by 2020, the annual cost of medical care for seniors who fall is expected to reach $54.9 billion—many magnitudes more than the approximately $2 billion per year the federal government spends on nutrition assistance for senior citizens.
> 
> Sen. Paul, however, explicitly rejected this logic. “It’s curious that only in Washington can you spend $2 billion and claim that you’re saving money,” he said. “The idea or notion that spending money in Washington somehow is saving money really flies past most of the taxpayers.”*  Instead, Paul touted the “nobility of private charity” as opposed to government-funded “transfer programs.” He suggested privatizing Meals on Wheels and other government assistance for hungry seniors.*




So in Rand Paul's world... thousands of Seniors will be reduced to begging for food and medical care.. Throwing themselves at the benevolence of the Donor class..  How heartless...   So much for dignified aging in the "golden years".. and begging the question.. WHY would ANY Senior vote Republican?


----------



## BobF (Aug 23, 2015)

The above posts and contents were about FOOD and nothing about medical.   Why this stretch in the responding post?

As I know it, we still have large amounts of food for the poor provided by the private groups.   And it is mostly done through the donations of believers of that service.   Much less expensive than having a government try to run things and take dollars of taxes and providing pennies of food after they pay for rent, workers wages, government efforts charges, and on and on.   Governments are by the way they operate, not very efficient at all.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 23, 2015)

I agree QS, politicians like Rand Paul want to alter anything that might help middle income or low income seniors in the times they need help most, when their elderly and less likely to remain independent on their own, in their own homes, without some type of assistance.

  Also, being malnourished goes hand in hand with medical problems that may lead to death, emergency room visits or nursing homes, and that's a higher cost to all of us, including government.  With the big push for cuts, elimination or privatization of senior programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid etc. (universal healthcare would solve this issue)...it does seem like a republican vote by the elderly middle class, like many of us are here, would be a vote against all self interest as a senior citizen.


----------



## Lon (Aug 23, 2015)

If in fact the United States actually has Seniors starving I am opposed to any and all Government spending to feed them and would never vote for any politician that would propose such insanity.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 23, 2015)

Lon said:


> If in fact the United States actually has Seniors starving I am opposed to any and all Government spending to feed them and would never vote for any politician that would propose such insanity.



Why does that not surprise me...


----------



## Debby (Aug 23, 2015)

Lon said:


> If in fact the United States actually has Seniors starving I am opposed to any and all Government spending to feed them and would never vote for any politician that would propose such insanity.




So your philosophy is 'let the old farts die'?  Have I got that right?   Well that would certainly save a few tax dollars but a heck of a way to say thanks for the years of helping to build the economy to where it's at today.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 23, 2015)

The wife of Louis XIV said it much more eloquently - 

"_Qu'ils mangent de la brioche_" - "Let them eat cake".


----------



## Lon (Aug 23, 2015)

If it could be demonstrated or proven to me that we have significant numbers of seniors STARVING TO DEATH in the United States I would change my mind instantly.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 23, 2015)

Lon said:


> If it could be demonstrated or proven to me that we significant numbers of seniors STARVING TO DEATH in the United States I would change my mind instantly.



Don't you think that cutting meals on wheels or other senior nutritional assistance programs would significantly increase the numbers?  Many are kept from starving because of these... why do you oppose them?


----------



## Debby (Aug 23, 2015)

What if it was shown that seniors who are subsisting on cheap, crap food because they can't afford to buy wholesome, nutritious food were dying of diseases caused by poor food?  People can 'starve' to death while their bellies have something in them.  Fill them full of white rice every day or cheap processed junk and they still 'starve' to death because they aren't getting magnesium and omega 3's and so on.  Given that fact, I think it could be easily proven that they are still 'starving' to death even if they are fat.



http://www.hungryforchange.tv/article/overfed-and-starving-to-death


----------



## Lon (Aug 23, 2015)

Oh my-----------You Libs are changing the subject now to try and strengthen your position on  caring for the aged. The initial implication in the OP was that we have Seniors Starving, and now we are talking Meals on Wheels and other things not to do with Seniors starving to death. Once you libs can actually come up with one single or maybe five news clippings telling about one of our poor ole seniors croaking due to them being STARVED TO DEATH I will apologise to all, and donate $$$ to some Left Wing organization.


----------



## BobF (Aug 23, 2015)

Meals on Wheels is one program that has been around for many years now.   Mostly run by volunteers and donations and the menu has fees for those that can pay.   Starting in 1996? there was a federal fund set up to help them stay solvent and able to help more.   

There are also many other ways for hardship folks to get food aid.   Salvation Army for one, and many local churches contribute time and money and space for such services.   It is not as if the US has tossed their old into the trash.   Some folks are just making it sound like the people don't care for each other.   The government could not dig up enough money to run all the charity needs of the US that are taken care of by the good feeling folks of our communities, churches, charity groups, and so forth.   Governments are mostly big cost for a few pennies of good they will claim.


----------



## AprilT (Aug 23, 2015)

Senior faces of hunger

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/senior-hunger-photo-essay/


----------



## BobF (Aug 23, 2015)

AprilT said:


> Senior faces of hunger
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/senior-hunger-photo-essay/



A very interesting article and it supports what I have said about federal aid.   It is insufficient.    Many do depend on religious help and local help for their food supplies.   p

Some complaints about medicine they cannot afford.   Why should that be.   They do have Obama care in Florida, don't they?

Thanks for this post as it sure sounds like my situation in a couple years.   I am 82 and my wife is 85.   I can still drive but not sure for how long.   Then it will depend on who we can get help from.   Meals on Wheels or some other charity group.   I sure won't have the money to pay my way into a seniors care home.


----------



## AprilT (Aug 23, 2015)

BobF said:


> A very interesting article and it supports what I have said about federal aid.   It is insufficient.    Many do depend on religious help and local help for their food supplies.   p
> 
> Some complaints about medicine they cannot afford.   Why should that be.   They do have Obama care in Florida, don't they?
> 
> Thanks for this post as it sure sounds like my situation in a couple years.   I am 82 and my wife is 85.   I can still drive but not sure for how long.   Then it will depend on who we can get help from.   Meals on Wheels or some other charity group.   I sure won't have the money to pay my way into a seniors care home.



You are quite welcome, but, having said that, please be aware, some of those agencies in the article stay afloat not only with private donations but also with a large portion of government aid.  Almost all of those individuals in the article depend on subsidies from government aid like food stamps and likely use government funded clinics at times.  We have several of these agencies here in the area, I've volunteered at one or two of them in the past and they do run on government aid and even a few of the volunteers of these programs are mandatory workers due to the aid they receive at certain locations.


----------



## BobF (Aug 23, 2015)

AprilT said:


> You are quite welcome, but, having said that, please be aware, some of those agencies in the article stay afloat not only with private donations but also with a large portion of government aid.  Almost all of those individuals in the article depend on subsidies from government aid like food stamps and likely use government funded clinics at times.  We have several of these agencies here in the area, I've volunteered at one or two of them in the past and they do run on government aid and even a few of the volunteers of these programs are mandatory workers due to the aid they receive at certain locations.



I understand what you are saying, and I wrote about federal backing in an earlier post about Meals on Wheels.   Certainly cities, states, and federal to try to help.   But much of it is done out of personal help and donations of materials and time.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 23, 2015)

That anyone could countenance even the possibility that it is ok for seniors to not receive gov't assistance in receiving food is beyond my comprehension.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 23, 2015)

Probably too late now to shut the stable door.
Providing retirement income for all citizens is something that should have been considered decades ago and a decent system of funding it set up as a national program.

One of our previous Labor governments set up a compulsory national  superannuation scheme that required all workers to have a set percentage paid into a personal fund that could not be access before age 55. To begin with the amount was small - 3% of wages - and the unions agreed to forgo wage increases at the time to encourage employer to agree to the impost. Over time the percentage of wages has risen (currently 9.5%) and the final figure will be 12%. Workers can voluntarily add to their super accounts and receive a tax break for doing so.

We still have a means tested aged pension scheme but more and more retirees are now drawing just a part pension to augment their own superannuation savings. 

On the whole women have less in super accounts but I am one of the lucky ones. We invested in a small home unit years ago and when we sold it, the capital was invested in my super account because Hubby was in a more generous government scheme. We are very well provided for with part government aged pensions and our own private pensions thanks to the universal superannuation scheme established in 1992.

Still, while it might be too late for members of Seniors Forums to benefit, I do urge you all to support any reforms that are designed to provide dignity in old age for future generations. Begging for food is not dignified. It is demeaning and an insult to people whose only crime is to have been poor all of their lives.


----------



## AZ Jim (Aug 23, 2015)

Lon said:


> If in fact the United States actually has Seniors starving I am opposed to any and all Government spending to feed them and would never vote for any politician that would propose such insanity.



This post need saying nothing more. It says it all.


----------



## Jackie22 (Aug 23, 2015)

AprilT, thanks for showing that this is a very real problem.  We talked a while back about the shortage of funds on nursing homes and how it was affecting the care of seniors....https://www.seniorforums.com/showth...Hard-to-Find-in-Texas?highlight=nursing+homes..

All this is the results of the cutbacks in congress, thanks to Republicans, and if they have their way, they'll cut more and more while at the same time spending billions on war and their rich corporate buddies.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 23, 2015)

How can any Christian wrap their head around such unbelievable indifference/denial? I am reminded of parable of the Pharisee. Walk on by baby. It's nothing to do with me.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 23, 2015)

jackie22 said:


> aprilt, thanks for showing that this is a very real problem.  We talked a while back about the shortage of funds on nursing homes and how it was affecting the care of seniors....https://www.seniorforums.com/showth...hard-to-find-in-texas?highlight=nursing+homes..
> 
> All this is the results of the cutbacks in congress, thanks to republicans, and if they have their way, they'll cut more and more while at the same time spending billions on war and their rich corporate buddies.




yep!!


----------



## AZ Jim (Aug 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> yep!!
> 
> View attachment 20703



And they clamor for more and more military.  We sit blindly by and allow this insanity.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 23, 2015)

Military 57%. How is that working so far?


----------



## BobF (Aug 23, 2015)

Something about that post Jim.   If the government actually took on the job of feeding all, it would go bankrupt rather quickly.   Many of the volunteer for the poor care centers do get some federal or state money to help them pay the bills and buy materials.   Certainly needed and helpful.

But if the government also paid for all the help and hours the volunteers and the helpful organization does, they would not last long.   Pay those helpers and volunteers by the latest minimum wage that some states have offered, I believe it was $10 dollars in California.   It would add up and the government would not be able to carry the load alone.   Between the two, there seems to be a working deal going on.   

We should all try to keep our expenses in control over our lives and hopefully have sufficient to face retirement in good financial shape.   I am not a rich person, but I do have home and care paid for.   I have enough in the bank to buy my health insurances per these new rules of Obama care.   And I also do buy other insurances that cover beyond the doctors and drugs that must be purchased.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 23, 2015)

BobF said:


> We should all try to keep our expenses in control over our lives and hopefully have sufficient to face retirement in good financial shape.   I am not a rich person, but I do have home and care paid for.   I have enough in the bank to buy my health insurances per these new rules of Obama care.   And I also do buy other insurances that cover beyond the doctors and drugs that must be purchased.



Good for you Bob but women are often not in the same position. Having taken time out from paid work to care for family members, and not just the children, and having been paid lower wages than men, their retirement incomes are often very meagre. I'm enough of feminist to say that this isn't fair and some adjustment in their favour is warranted.

Women aren't the only disadvantaged group either.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 23, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> That anyone could countenance even the possibility that it is ok for seniors to not receive gov't assistance in receiving food is beyond my comprehension.



I absolutely agree!  What is WRONG with some people?


----------



## BobF (Aug 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> yep!!
> 
> View attachment 20703




Not sure what that chart is showing as the chart I am posting shows much different proportions and where it is spent.

Department of Agriculture is not the biggest group but larger of the smaller groups and fifth down from the largest group, and military, Department of Defense, is not the biggest group either as it is second down the line by size and costs, below the Health and Services group.

http://www.federalbudget.com/


----------



## BobF (Aug 24, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Good for you Bob but women are often not in the same position. Having taken time out from paid work to care for family members, and not just the children, and having been paid lower wages than men, their retirement incomes are often very meagre. I'm enough of feminist to say that this isn't fair and some adjustment in their favour is warranted.
> 
> Women aren't the only disadvantaged group either.



And many men do not take care of themselves of their families first.  They must have their boats, motor homes, travel a lot, and depend on hand outs for care when old.   It is a sad situation that is being nurtured by too many governments.   Full care for all is never going to happen.   Look to Greece and other European countries.   Spain looks to be another Greece and some of the full socialist types sound good, but look to their homes, about half the size of US, Canada, and Australia.   People are crammed into smaller spaces with fewer possessions.   Some homes in Europe have no ovens in the kitchens or laundry machines.   Things which in the US seem to be standard.

For all of us we should be doing our best to take care of our lives through retirement and to the grave.   I know we can not all handle that job but far too many just don't even try.   And our governments just encourage the sit on your butt attitudes as folks depend on the federal handouts rather than prepare.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 24, 2015)

Excuse me, Canada takes care of it's old. Also full health care for all. No one here loses their house or becomes bankrupt because of an expensive illness.


----------



## Debby (Aug 24, 2015)

Lon said:


> Oh my-----------You Libs are changing the subject now to try and strengthen your position on  caring for the aged. The initial implication in the OP was that we have Seniors Starving, and now we are talking Meals on Wheels and other things not to do with Seniors starving to death. Once you libs can actually come up with one single or maybe five news clippings telling about one of our poor ole seniors croaking due to them being STARVED TO DEATH I will apologise to all, and donate $$$ to some Left Wing organization.




You're a very lucky man that you don't have to be concerned about dying from malnutrition induced disease or actually turning into a poster child for 'no food at all'.   Starving for nutrients is no less painful and soul and body killing than starving for 'food'.

Tell us please, what is wrong with caring about the aged who for myriad reasons haven't been able to climb that social ladder of affluence in the same way as you have?  Like everything there are degrees of ability and not everyone is equally 'blessed' in that regard.

While opportunities are 'there' for everyone to access in our respective countries, not everyone is born with the same abilities and temperament.  It seems to me that what sets us in the developed world apart from some other regions is the fact that we care for the least among us.  

When my husband first started his business, we had also had our first baby so I wasn't working and we didn't intend for me to return to the workforce.  We began receiving the monthly Family Allowance check in short order and if memory serves, we were cut off sometime in the first year......because our income reached the cut off point so we no longer qualified.  But we never grumbled about it because we were aware that there were families who actually needed that money more than we did.  The idea of caring for those who are aged and less 'set up' is similar.  

A peoples greatness is demonstrated by their willingness to take care of the less fortunate.


----------



## Jackie22 (Aug 24, 2015)

I see no one talking about "full care for all", I think the majority of the elderly take care of themselves, but there always has been and always will be those that can not and to me it is inhuman not to care for them or to cut funds that does take care of them to the breaking point while at the same time catering to the military and the rich.....this is what is happening in this country and it is happening everyday more and more.

Debby, I think we posted at the same time, you said it much better than me.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 24, 2015)

Well said... both of you.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 24, 2015)

I have an American friend whose wife suffers from Primary Progressive Aphasia. Terrible disease, which will leave her mindless before ultimately killing her. She is only in her early sixties. He has worked hard all his life. They both worked and  raised four children. Now he stays at home in order to care for her. Should she live too long, he will probably lose everything. How is this acceptable?


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 24, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> I have an American friend whose wife suffers from Primary Progressive Aphasia. Terrible disease, which will leave her mindless before ultimately killing her. She is only in her early sixties. He has worked hard all his life. They both worked and  raised four children. Now he stays at home in order to care for her. Should she live too long, he will probably lose everything. How is this acceptable?



It's not acceptable Shalimar....  he will likely have to choose between medicine for his wife and eating nutritious meals..  It's very short sighted IMO..


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 24, 2015)

QS, it is a tragedy for all, when a person is left secretly hoping their loved one passes soon. Apparently, she is slipping much faster than medically expected. This is a good/bad thing.


----------



## BobF (Aug 24, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Excuse me, Canada takes care of it's old. Also full health care for all. No one here loses their house or becomes bankrupt because of an expensive illness.



And so does the US.   We do take care of those that cannot or won't.   Surely you don't take over expenses when that person retires.   That is the money that is being wasted so badly in the US.   To many folks do not plan for their future at all.   They just rely on the government to step in and take over that job.   Canada does seem to have some good systems going, but each province is different in some ways.   Some that can do it come to the US for their medical treatments and some ladies are shipped to US hospitals for baby births.   I hope they have fixed that weakness by now.   It happened in British Columbia as I remember.   We all do have weaknesses at times.   Right now in the US it is our federal government.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 24, 2015)

BobF said:


> And so does the US.   We do take care of those that cannot or won't.   Surely you don't take over expenses when they person retires.   That is the money that is being wasted so badly in the US.   To many folks do not plan for their future at all.   They just rely on the government to step in and take over that job.   Canada does seem to have some good systems going, but each province is different in some ways.   Some that can do it come to the US for their medical treatments and some ladies are shipped to US hospitals for baby births.   I hope they have fixed that weakness by now.   It happened in British Columbia as I remember.   We all do have weaknesses at times.   Right now in the US it is our federal government.



I don't know of any retirees whose expenses are "taken over" when they retire.  Some older people need help, and they should get it -- that's your "wasted" money -- helping people eat and get decent medical care???  If you are talking about social security and medicare, we contributed to it all our lives and we are indeed entitled to receive it.  Wasted government money?  NO.  It's our money -- paid in over our lifetimes.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 24, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> I don't know of any retirees whose expenses are "taken over" when they retire.  Some older people need help, and they should get it -- that's your "wasted" money -- helping people eat and get decent medical care???  If you are talking about social security and medicare, we contributed to it all our lives and we are indeed entitled to receive it.  Wasted government money?  NO.  It's our money -- paid in over our lifetimes.



IT should be mentioned that some Seniors are getting very little in Social Security..  Perhaps they were women who never worked outside the home... perhaps they worked at low paying jobs all their lives.. and didn't have the ability to sock away a nest egg.    SS is awarded based on a formula using income..  If someone is only collecting $1000 or less SS.. and that is their only source if income... is it a wonder they will need help?    Should we NOT help them?   I think that is the point being debated..    Seniors should not have to choose between medicine and food.  They should not have to BEG for help from uncaring relatives or strangers.  We spend very little on food assistance programs as it is.. YET the GOP wants to cut more..  It's a disgrace.


----------



## Debby (Aug 24, 2015)

Crap, did it again and came off sounding preachy.  I'm sorry, I just can't seem to help myself can I???  

I just remembered that I read a modern day parable once and although it was written about a father with a disabled child, the point of it would apply to anyone who is less able.

A father was agonizing over the unfairness of life for his disabled child.  He asked a wise man why God would do this to the child, to him, to their family.  The wise man answered, "God does it because He is seeking perfection".  The words rang hollow in the anguished man's heart and he cried out, "Where is the perfection in my child?"  "He cannot run, he cannot play, he suffers continually!  Where is that perfection?"

After a moment of silence, the wise man said to him, very quietly and with words filled with love, "That perfection that He seeks is in the reactions of those around that child who have the opportunity and ability to care for and love him and ease his suffering and help him to find joy in the confined life that is his."


I love the lesson here, shifting the focus from the unfairness or pain of life, to the positive instead.


----------



## Debby (Aug 24, 2015)

BobF said:


> And so does the US.   We do take care of those that cannot or won't.   Surely you don't take over expenses when they person retires.   That is the money that is being wasted so badly in the US.   To many folks do not plan for their future at all.   They just rely on the government to step in and take over that job.   Canada does seem to have some good systems going, but each province is different in some ways.   Some that can do it come to the US for their medical treatments and some ladies are shipped to US hospitals for baby births.   I hope they have fixed that weakness by now.   It happened in British Columbia as I remember.   We all do have weaknesses at times.   Right now in the US it is our federal government.




You should remember that in Canada, we have kind of a triage system, meaning that those who are sickest, get help first so if anyone who has the cash gets sick and doesn't want to 'wait their turn', they have every right to access the care they need in another jurisdiction but they pay for it out of their own pocket.  And if women are being 'shipped' to the US to give birth, it's only because there is some specialist help there, that our hospitals aren't set up for.   Perhaps the incidences of that particular kind of malady or whatever is so small that it's not cost effective to bring in some ultra expensive machinery that will hardly get used.  Remember, we're a lot smaller country than you which means we've less resources to call on in some instances.


----------



## WhatInThe (Aug 24, 2015)

*related RANT*

There is "a" problem with food stamp abuse. Seniors are not the majority of the problem. And as many government services as possible should be done at the local level. That being said working age adults account for the majority of food stamp use.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/22/m...w-working-age-adults-not-children-or-seniors/

Yes the economy is not helping or healthy but there is also an attitude of using but not actually needing benefit programs simply because they are there-the infamous "you paid into it" helps rationalize early but non emergency use of these programs which stress the funding. Also in many circles there is an accompanying misconception about any government service program is that they were ment for those in dire need and having trouble surviving and NOT to maintain the old life style. When I see people sit on 99 weeks of unemployment, do almost nothing only willing to take a higher paying then apply for food stamps after I don't have the sympathy as I do for someone living on the streets. This is also a reason many food banks have to apply standards and put users through as much scrutiny as the government. When I see people applying for or on food stamps taking vacations, going to concerts, sporting events, bars, restaurants and then cry because they failed to save or plan I have no sympathy.

 Point is until the system is fixed and properly prioritized perhaps it would be better to limit benefits or shift more funding to seniors and children forcing the working age adults to work, do something and realize daily survival is their job and priority.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 24, 2015)

With only 1% of our budget going toward Food assistance and agriculture assistance... and *57% *toward Military spending... I have a real hard time blaming the poor and seniors for the deficit...    It's a non-issue except for those who really don't want to help the needy.. but prefer to live under the delusion that there are vast amounts of people milking the system..   1% is very little to milk.


----------



## BobF (Aug 24, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> There is "a" problem with food stamp abuse. Seniors are not the majority of the problem. And as many government services as possible should be done at the local level. That being said working age adults account for the majority of food stamp use.
> 
> http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/22/m...w-working-age-adults-not-children-or-seniors/
> 
> ...




Thank you WhatInThe.   It appears that you have at least agreed with my posts about the wrong people getting taken care of because our government has loosened the rules so much for the unemployed ones.    All should be encouraged to find work and pay their own way, not encouraged to sit on their butts and complain about no jobs being around.    I have been unemployed at different times and was always looking for a job.   In fact, in Ohio, we had to show contacts with three possible employers each week in order to get our allowance.    And it was not much either.   Being a mechanical engineer is no excuse to sit and get fed.   As long as jobs do not exist means that the person might be able to be a truck driver for a local delivery company or ticket agent at a ball game.   Keep in touch with the engineering market and when it starts to open start applying.   Much better for those unable to work that need support and funds that get short too often.


----------



## fureverywhere (Aug 24, 2015)

Rather than being reduced to eating cat food, I say we serve up Chris Christie. We could feed half the state and still have leftovers.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 24, 2015)

I thought Mr. Christie had lap band surgery, and had lost a considerable amount of weight?


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 24, 2015)

I haven't noticed a huge difference


----------



## BobF (Aug 24, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> With only 1% of our budget going toward Food assistance and agriculture assistance... and *57% *toward Military spending... I have a real hard time blaming the poor and seniors for the deficit...    It's a non-issue except for those who really don't want to help the needy.. but prefer to live under the delusion that there are vast amounts of people milking the system..   1% is very little to milk.



Just yesterday I posted a real US budget expenses graph and it does not agree at all with that chart you posted and just quoted a incorrect number from.

Who put that incorrect chart out anyway?    It is wrong and should be scrapped right away.


----------



## Underock1 (Aug 25, 2015)

Lon said:


> If in fact the United States actually has Seniors starving I am opposed to any and all Government spending to feed them and would never vote for any politician that would propose such insanity.



,,,and you have such a warm smile.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 25, 2015)

And spending 57% of the budget on defence makes sense? Eisenhower was right.


----------



## BobF (Aug 25, 2015)

Good thing it is not 57%.   You have to read a real chart and will see that military is below that spent on Health and Human Services, which is the highest spending listed on the chart. 

http://www.federalbudget.com/

How this chart is created from federal inputs.

http://www.federalbudget.com/chartinfo.html

Nobody seems able to defend that chart showing 57% or who made it.   Best to stick to facts from our government.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 25, 2015)

Bob, I think the 57% figure for military spending comes from this link https://www.nationalpriorities.org/...ited-states/?gclid=CM7IiZ6txMcCFUGXvQody74JFw  and it includes  all regular activities of the Department of Defense; war spending; nuclear weapons spending; international military assistance; and other Pentagon-related spending.

Are you sure that the two graphs are using the same category groupings?


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 25, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Bob, I think the 57% figure for military spending comes from this link https://www.nationalpriorities.org/...ited-states/?gclid=CM7IiZ6txMcCFUGXvQody74JFw  and it includes  all regular activities of the Department of Defense;war spending; nuclear weapons spending; international military assistance; and other Pentagon-related spending.
> 
> Are you sure that the two graphs are using the same category groupings?



Makes sense when you consider....


----------



## BobF (Aug 25, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Bob, I think the 57% figure for military spending comes from this link https://www.nationalpriorities.org/...ited-states/?gclid=CM7IiZ6txMcCFUGXvQody74JFw  and it includes  all regular activities of the Department of Defense;war spending; nuclear weapons spending; international military assistance; and other Pentagon-related spending.
> 
> Are you sure that the two graphs are using the same category groupings?



My point is that the charts I have posted use the US government supported numbers but so far no one has ever posted who made those other charts and what were their sources for their numbers.   Numbers can be twisted by any one to make a point but for the US our best source is from the federal budget offices and their official numbers.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 25, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Bob, I think the 57% figure for military spending comes from this link https://www.nationalpriorities.org/...ited-states/?gclid=CM7IiZ6txMcCFUGXvQody74JFw  and it includes  all regular activities of the Department of Defense;war spending; nuclear weapons spending; international military assistance; and other Pentagon-related spending.
> 
> Are you sure that the two graphs are using the same category groupings?



When one considers the percentage of the budget going to Military it would only make SENSE to include the upkeep and funding of our vast network of foreign bases, as well as our nuclear program and international military assistance.  to exclude them would be only telling part of the picture..  So 54-57% is very accurate..


----------



## BobF (Aug 25, 2015)

I have just gone to the link you posted Warrigal.   At first glance it seems they are dedicated to show how much money is wasted on military expenses by the US.   I will need to read more to try to understand how their ways are so different from the US federal numbers.   If they truly do use our government expenses it would be nice to know why they are different.   So I keep on looking.   It will take some time to understand how two source claiming to use the same numbers come up with such different outputs.


----------



## AprilT (Aug 25, 2015)

links give information on the site about source information.  In addition you will have to use various thinking abilities and sources to breakdown the spending as welfare means a whole lot of things, not just food stamps or providing to people are needy as one might think welfare includes tax subsidies to corporations and other types of subsidies to farmers and such.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_total_spending_pie_chart

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/US_fed_spending_pie_chart

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/casey-bond/most-americans-have-income-tax_b_5030333.html


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 25, 2015)

Yes April. Graphs can be drawn to make just about any point we want to make.
It's the raw data that matters and that takes a statistician to interpret.


----------



## BobF (Aug 25, 2015)

I like these charts that April posted.   They sure look more like the ones I have posted.   I would expect that no matter who makes the chart if they use the same federal stats for both.   

Have not had time to do my look in to those other graphs that Warrigal gave links too.


----------

