Drug test for welfare

Just get $200 and buy yourself a "whizz-I-nator" I got me one and if your a female your kind of fucked If you try this or you will get the most weirdest fucking looks life has ever given you on yor way out... http://www.thewhizzinator.com/lifest...nator-in-white

they have them in all different colors... But I advertised this specific one cuz I'm a white guy and this is the one I have...

Originally Posted by Gastanker

Again, read. That chart was posted in response to someone else' posted statistics. They were quoting figures based on the spending rate of a family that makes $60k while we were talking about families making $40k. If you want to argue with the charts figures themselves then go take your arguement to the department of labor and the department of labor statistics.


Again, there are families that live in poverty, ~15% of America, that are kept alive on $20k/year for families of 4, $17k/year for families of 3, and $10k/year for single individuals. How ungrateful are you? You are just being "kept alive" on $35k/year...wow. And again, what does any of this have to do with receiving benefits for unemployment? I don't think I ever said anything about being against people legitimately using unemployment.

I'm sorry you are not as employable as you would like to be. I'm afraid I cannot help you with this.

yes, i did read, and you were actually quoting me when you posted that chart. i also read the whole chart, which clearly states that the 63k is before income tax. you can't spend what you don't have in your hand. i have been assuming that when we say 40k we are talking about net income. 63k would be taxed at a rate of 25%, leaving the actual net income of about 47k, and that's without state tax. using my own state as an example, that would equal an additional 5.3% of tax equaling $5,966, bringing the total net income to just about 41k, meaning that that hypothetical "family" is now 8k in the hole, and STILL hasn't accounted for loan or credit card debt. i'm not "arguing" with the chart, i'm simply interpreting it correctly.

unlike that selective and incomplete chart that uses different family units for each expendiature, my statistics were actually specifically "per adult person" or "per household" and directly from the department of labor, which has statistics on a scale to account for families vs singles. i was quoting actual figures for single people and single households.

you are refusing to accept the actual cost to live. your own chart, again, completely proved that. the "family" on that chart is completely in debt, and even if they erased their $2600 entertainment budget, the apparel budget, and personal care budget, and did without clothes and soap and going to the theater, they are STILL debt. how do you not see this?

Originally Posted by dirtsurfr

That is actually funny and accurate..but We can't follow he rules of the animal kingdom and survival of the fittest when it suits us...fine if they wanna make it survivl of the fittest..I like my odds..but that means no more police, taxes of any kind and government..every man for himself.

Originally Posted by Total Head

yes, i did read, and you were actually quoting me when you posted that chart. i also read the whole chart, which clearly states that the 63k is before income tax. you can't spend what you don't have in your hand. i have been assuming that when we say 40k we are talking about net income. 63k would be taxed at a rate of 25%, leaving the actual net income of about 47k, and that's without state tax. using my own state as an example, that would equal an additional 5.3% of tax equaling $5,966, bringing the total net income to just about 41k, meaning that that hypothetical "family" is now 8k in the hole, and STILL hasn't accounted for loan or credit card debt. i'm not "arguing" with the chart, i'm simply interpreting it correctly.

unlike that selective and incomplete chart that uses different family units for each expendiature, my statistics were actually specifically "per adult person" or "per household" and directly from the department of labor, which has statistics on a scale to account for families vs singles. i was quoting actual figures for single people and single households.

you are refusing to accept the actual cost to live. your own chart, again, completely proved that. the "family" on that chart is completely in debt, and even if they erased their $2600 entertainment budget, the apparel budget, and personal care budget, and did without clothes and soap and going to the theater, they are STILL debt. how do you not see this?

No, that's not what that chart proves at all. I'm sorry this is so confusing to you. Now I'll try and make this simple:

If a family making 4 million $ a year spends 100% of their income on gas - does that mean a family making $100k/year is going to starve because the person making 4 million went broke buying gas? No... it has no bearing. Why you keep trying to apply the statistics of a family making 60k to a family making 40k is beyond me. You even admit to this... you're saying that a single man making 40k spends the same amount on gas as a family making 60k... which means people spend money differently based on lifestyle, amount earned, and priorities.

Again here's another way to put it simply. According to your logic if most average families that make $200k/year spend 90% of their income then it means all families in America need to spend $180k/year to be comfortable. Does this make sense? No...

Just go talk to a social worker if you don't believe that families live of 40k a year. AND AGAIN WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE? Other than you obviously not being able to budget your income what does any of this have to do with unemployment benefits. Thank the lord you make greater than $40k/year or you wouldn't be able to smoke pot while sitting on the internet all day long. Right?

Btw, I love that you think the average family is starving and on unemployment.

The average family is living check to check and if something happened..an illness, or a lay off and they would be foreclosed on or evicted by a landlord pretty quick.

Originally Posted by Corso312

The average family is living check to check and if something happened..an illness, or a lay off and they would be foreclosed on or evicted by a landlord pretty quick.

Too true. It's getting sadder and sadder. And what really kills me is that it doesn't matter how much they make. Whether its 10k or 1mil people spend beyond their means and save nothing. Imo the promise of a check from the government if something goes wrong is partly to blame.

I think that is more of a sign that the cost of living has rose well above the wages, the government is squeezing people too hard and pissing away the money they take.

I think we need to go to a 30 hour work week so we all can have a job.