why do Democrats HATE people keeping more of their $$$?

[CID1990]

It is my civic duty and my pleasure to pay taxes in this country.

It is also my right to take issue with the amount of taxes I pay, especially given that there is a LOT of waste and frivolity in the way the government uses those tax dollars.

Pork and earmarks might well be a very small percentage of the problem, but it is very symbolic of the reasons people do not trust our government these days, and have a problem with their tax brackets.

[kalm]

How the **** are taxes theft? If you legitimately feel like you are being stolen from annually by the government... why don't you **** do something about it? Instead you just whine like a little bitch. Man up and do something. Move to a country without an income tax and renounce your US citizenship. Enjoy your stay.

Was that a threat? Objecting to theft is not whining. Just because you and kalm vote to steal from me, even though I vote against it but you therefore win with 67% of the vote, does not make you right and me wrong.

You and the rest of the big government, big spenders need to man up and create your own utopic results with your own hard work and resources, not someone else's.

You are very fortunate, skelly, to live in a country of laws, with a real constitution. We are all very unfortunate that you and your ilk use those laws illegitimately and stretch their original intent to steal from others and destroy civil society.

When (if) you ever become economically productive and begin to pay real taxes, I might begin to give a sh!t about your opinion on taxes. When (if) you begin to match your own volunteer actions and donations to your own utopic wet dreams, then I might beging to care about your dreams.

CLUE: Community organizing and social advocacy without personal sacrifice, hard work and productive, results-oriented commitment count for nothing.

Man do you struggle with the concept of democracy.

[native]

Was that a threat? Objecting to theft is not whining. Just because you and kalm vote to steal from me, even though I vote against it but you therefore win with 67% of the vote, does not make you right and me wrong.

You and the rest of the big government, big spenders need to man up and create your own utopic results with your own hard work and resources, not someone else's.

You are very fortunate, skelly, to live in a country of laws, with a real constitution. We are all very unfortunate that you and your ilk use those laws illegitimately and stretch their original intent to steal from others and destroy civil society.

When (if) you ever become economically productive and begin to pay real taxes, I might begin to give a sh!t about your opinion on taxes. When (if) you begin to match your own volunteer actions and donations to your own utopic wet dreams, then I might beging to care about your dreams.

CLUE: Community organizing and social advocacy without personal sacrifice, hard work and productive, results-oriented commitment count for nothing.

Man do you struggle with the concept of democracy.

Not at all! I struggle with jackasses who do not understand the value of hard work and attendant reward, who prefer theft over personal initiative and productive activity, who fail to act and vote responsibly in a democratic, civil society, and who fail to grasp that a free and prosperous democratic society requires property rights, as envisioned by the Founders.

[Skjellyfetti]

It is my civic duty and my pleasure to pay taxes in this country.

It is also my right to take issue with the amount of taxes I pay, especially given that there is a LOT of waste and frivolity in the way the government uses those tax dollars.

Pork and earmarks might well be a very small percentage of the problem, but it is very symbolic of the reasons people do not trust our government these days, and have a problem with their tax brackets.

This is a much better post than that rant of nativist's rant that addressed absolutely nothing.

[travelinman67]

Not at all! I struggle with jackasses who do not understand the value of hard work and attendant reward, who prefer theft over personal initiative and productive activity, who fail to act and vote responsibly in a democratic, civil society, and who fail to grasp that a free and prosperous democratic society requires property rights, as envisioned by the Founders.

Well said...

...I begin to wonder what it is about proprietary rewarding of initiative that Dems have trouble understanding...

...then I go back and read Kalm, Jellydonut and Douchebag's posts and it comes into focus.

[CID1990]

It is my civic duty and my pleasure to pay taxes in this country.

It is also my right to take issue with the amount of taxes I pay, especially given that there is a LOT of waste and frivolity in the way the government uses those tax dollars.

Pork and earmarks might well be a very small percentage of the problem, but it is very symbolic of the reasons people do not trust our government these days, and have a problem with their tax brackets.

This is a much better post than that rant of nativist's rant that addressed absolutely nothing.

All that being said, I truly believe that if our government practiced even a modicum of fiscal sense and responsibility we could all be in about a 10-15% tax bracket (that includes ALL taxes total). Infrastructure, defense, public health, all of those things could be fully funded at those tax levels. The problem is what we piggyback on those necessary things.... shark piss studies, striped tadpole impact studies, money to determine the demographics of soda pop consumption. In other words, our government has taken upon itself the duty of funding those things that are only important to the smallest of special interests. We have lost sight of what the 'common good' really means. If there is a group of people who truly believe that the mating habits of south Texas earthworms would make a study worth pursuing (at funding levels of 250%, by the way) then let those people convince Ross Perot or Ted Turner to fund them.

Along the way we have conditioned a lot of Americans into thinking that this is what government should be doing.... everything.

Plus, we have spent ourselves into such a corner over the last 35 years that now we DO need to have higher taxes just to pay down the debt. Unfortunately our government does not have the ability to downsize spending while raising taxes. We'll be borrowing just to make our interest payments within 10 years and yet we are still building those unneeded bridges and studying the relative merits of using styrofoam peanuts vs. egg crates.

[kalm]

Man do you struggle with the concept of democracy.

Not at all! I struggle with jackasses who do not understand the value of hard work and attendant reward, who prefer theft over personal initiative and productive activity, who fail to act and vote responsibly in a democratic, civil society, and who fail to grasp that a free and prosperous democratic society requires property rights, as envisioned by the Founders.

I love it when you go all Glenn Beck on me.

[ming01]

Seems to me the big difference between the D's and the R's is that the D's actually want to be able to pay for their pork, the R's want to put it on a tab.

Before we cut taxes we need to cut spending. Cutting taxes without cutting spending might be the worst thing we can do.

nobody is cutting taxes, theyre just extending current rates

[ming01]

This is getting off topic...

CM's question is "why dems hate people keeping their money...".

Fundamentally, this argument is brought up daily on the Hill...

...Dem's carefully crafting their statements to phrase "cuts in taxes" as "cutting government" or "giving XXXX millions/billions of government's money". The basis is that Dem's see "income" as being derived from, and belonging to government, with the citizen's being allowed to keep a portion of their "income". This view is SOOOOO inappropriate in light of our country's founding, moving back to a feudal perspective, in true comparison, not just as supplanters of overlords (wealthy, corporate greed...as Jon implied), but in support of the King (government).

...been said before, but...

...the Dems have become the party AGAINST the common man, supporting government's interests FIRST...

...and the Reps have become the party of smaller govt., ultimately, in support of individual rights and empowement.

neither party is for the common man. republicans are not the party of smaller gov't. all Rs and Ds do is grow government. i am praying that will change with our next congress but im not holding my breath

[JohnStOnge]

I don't think it's hate. It's just a good way to maintain political power. Politicians essentially buy votes by establishing popular government programs while using a "progressive" tax system to make sure that majority of the people aren't bearing the cost of those program.s It's giving the majority of the people something for little or, in many instances, nothing. Right now, if the desire is to maintain and/or even increase popular programs, more money is needed. Once again, the plan is to take more money from a relatively small percentage of the people.

[native]

... I truly believe that if our government practiced even a modicum of fiscal sense and responsibility we could all be in about a 10-15% tax bracket (that includes ALL taxes total). Infrastructure, defense, public health, all of those things could be fully funded at those tax levels. The problem is what we piggyback on those necessary things.... shark piss studies, striped tadpole impact studies, money to determine the demographics of soda pop consumption. In other words, our government has taken upon itself the duty of funding those things that are only important to the smallest of special interests. We have lost sight of what the 'common good' really means. If there is a group of people who truly believe that the mating habits of south Texas earthworms would make a study worth pursuing (at funding levels of 250%, by the way) then let those people convince Ross Perot or Ted Turner to fund them.

Along the way we have conditioned a lot of Americans into thinking that this is what government should be doing.... everything.

Plus, we have spent ourselves into such a corner over the last 35 years that now we DO need to have higher taxes just to pay down the debt. Unfortunately our government does not have the ability to downsize spending while raising taxes. We'll be borrowing just to make our interest payments within 10 years and yet we are still building those unneeded bridges and studying the relative merits of using styrofoam peanuts vs. egg crates.

Exactly so!

[JohnStOnge]

In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.

I just picked one to talk about but this kind of demagoguery provides absolutely zero information pertaining to the question of whether or not the "typical" person in the "middle class" is better or worse off. I tried finding historical data on median individual incomes as that would be the best way to illustrate the fallacy of the kind of approach represented above and could not. But I was able to at least approximate what median family income was in 1949 (1950 census).

Using the table 57 at http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/ ... 2p1ch3.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to determine that median family income in 1949 was estimated at somewhere between $2,999 and $3,499. According to the inflation calculator at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that is in the range of $27,033.46 - $31,540.54. And it was much closer to the lower end of the range as $2,999 is the point at or below which 48.4 percent of the families fell and $3,499 is the point at or below which 59.4 percent fell (median is point below which 50 percent fell).

According to the latest Census Bureau estimate, median family income in 2009 (latest year for which an estimate is available) was $51,989. So the "typical middle class" family of 2009 in the middle of the income distribution had somewhere in the range of 65% - 92% more buying power than the "typical middle class"family of 1949 did.

The fact that the ratio of executive's paycheck went from somewhere around 30:1 up to something like 500:1 has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the "typical" person or family is better or worse off. They are clearly better off now than they were around 1950. WAY better off.

Also, I assure you, you would get the same basic picture with median individual income. I have absolutely no doubt about that. It would get complicated because women were less likely to work and there were fewer two-income families. But I hope nobody is going to say people "had"to move to two incomes to stay even. They didn't stay even. Given that the median in 1949 was much closer to the lower end of the range described above we're talking about the "typical" family having close to twice the buying power now than it did around 1950.

So what if, say, families in the top 1 percent made even more progress than that? Why is it "bad" that families in the top 1 percent have 10, 100 or even 1000 times the buying power as they did around 1950 if the "typical" family makes twice as much? As the cliche goes, it's the politics of envy.






was betwee

[kalm]

In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.

I just picked one to talk about but this kind of demagoguery provides absolutely zero information pertaining to the question of whether or not the "typical" person in the "middle class" is better or worse off. I tried finding historical data on median individual incomes as that would be the best way to illustrate the fallacy of the kind of approach represented above and could not. But I was able to at least approximate what median family income was in 1949 (1950 census).

Using the table 57 at http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/ ... 2p1ch3.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to determine that median family income in 1949 was estimated at somewhere between $2,999 and $3,499. According to the inflation calculator at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that is in the range of $27,033.46 - $31,540.54. And it was much closer to the lower end of the range as $2,999 is the point at or below which 48.4 percent of the families fell and $3,499 is the point at or below which 59.4 percent fell (median is point below which 50 percent fell).

According to the latest Census Bureau estimate, median family income in 2009 (latest year for which an estimate is available) was $51,989. So the "typical middle class" family of 2009 in the middle of the income distribution had somewhere in the range of 65% - 92% more buying power than the "typical middle class"family of 1949 did.

The fact that the ratio of executive's paycheck went from somewhere around 30:1 up to something like 500:1 has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the "typical" person or family is better or worse off. They are clearly better off now than they were around 1950. WAY better off.

Also, I assure you, you would get the same basic picture with median individual income. I have absolutely no doubt about that. It would get complicated because women were less likely to work and there were fewer two-income families. But I hope nobody is going to say people "had"to move to two incomes to stay even. They didn't stay even. Given that the median in 1949 was much closer to the lower end of the range described above we're talking about the "typical" family having close to twice the buying power now than it did around 1950.

So what if, say, families in the top 1 percent made even more progress than that? Why is it "bad" that families in the top 1 percent have 10, 100 or even 1000 times the buying power as they did around 1950 if the "typical" family makes twice as much? As the cliche goes, it's the politics of envy.






was betwee

Individuals and the government have gone into debt to maintain the same standard of living.

As for the ratio of management to worker pay, it's more a symptom than a cause. That being said, Wall Street banks are again paying record bonuses this year while the businesses they're not lending money too are not hiring or laying off workers. And Wall Street produces nothing.

[houndawg]

So sad that we'd rather keep the parasites on Wall Street than the manufacturing jobs that actually produce something of value.

[OL FU]

I just picked one to talk about but this kind of demagoguery provides absolutely zero information pertaining to the question of whether or not the "typical" person in the "middle class" is better or worse off. I tried finding historical data on median individual incomes as that would be the best way to illustrate the fallacy of the kind of approach represented above and could not. But I was able to at least approximate what median family income was in 1949 (1950 census).

Using the table 57 at http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/ ... 2p1ch3.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to determine that median family income in 1949 was estimated at somewhere between $2,999 and $3,499. According to the inflation calculator at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that is in the range of $27,033.46 - $31,540.54. And it was much closer to the lower end of the range as $2,999 is the point at or below which 48.4 percent of the families fell and $3,499 is the point at or below which 59.4 percent fell (median is point below which 50 percent fell).

According to the latest Census Bureau estimate, median family income in 2009 (latest year for which an estimate is available) was $51,989. So the "typical middle class" family of 2009 in the middle of the income distribution had somewhere in the range of 65% - 92% more buying power than the "typical middle class"family of 1949 did.

The fact that the ratio of executive's paycheck went from somewhere around 30:1 up to something like 500:1 has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the "typical" person or family is better or worse off. They are clearly better off now than they were around 1950. WAY better off.

Also, I assure you, you would get the same basic picture with median individual income. I have absolutely no doubt about that. It would get complicated because women were less likely to work and there were fewer two-income families. But I hope nobody is going to say people "had"to move to two incomes to stay even. They didn't stay even. Given that the median in 1949 was much closer to the lower end of the range described above we're talking about the "typical" family having close to twice the buying power now than it did around 1950.

So what if, say, families in the top 1 percent made even more progress than that? Why is it "bad" that families in the top 1 percent have 10, 100 or even 1000 times the buying power as they did around 1950 if the "typical" family makes twice as much? As the cliche goes, it's the politics of envy.






was betwee

Individuals and the government have gone into debt to maintain the same standard of living.

As for the ratio of management to worker pay, it's more a symptom than a cause. That being said, Wall Street banks are again paying record bonuses this year while the businesses they're not lending money too are not hiring or laying off workers. And Wall Street produces nothing.

It is pretty easy to make money when you can borrow from the fed at 0 interest and then loan to the federal government at 3%.

[Appaholic]

Last week = $451 billion in lost revenue...viewtopic.php?f=10&t=20648

This week, it's dems stealing money.....make up one of your minds, C-Man....

[CID1990]

Last week = $451 billion in lost revenue...viewtopic.php?f=10&t=20648

This week, it's dems stealing money.....make up one of your minds, C-Man....

LOL Appaholic-

I could have sworn Cman was going back and forth about things lately but I hadn't looked back to see what it was.

I think we might be gearing up for another "goodbye cruel world" episode.

[BlueHen86]

Seems to me the big difference between the D's and the R's is that the D's actually want to be able to pay for their pork, the R's want to put it on a tab.

Before we cut taxes we need to cut spending. Cutting taxes without cutting spending might be the worst thing we can do.

nobody is cutting taxes, theyre just extending current rates

I didn't say that anybody was.

[Skjellyfetti]

Well, I'd argue that the stimulus cut taxes for the vast majority of tax payers. But, maybe that's just me.

[BigSkyBears]

Honest taxes are not theft. Jacking up the rates on a whim or to support unneded pork projects IS. And, yes, that cuts across both parties.

Most Donkeys are probably OK, but the extreme left (Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Boxer, etc.) are just un-outed Commies at heart.

Not even close to being commies. Let's stay away from hyperbole please.

[AZGrizFan]

I just picked one to talk about but this kind of demagoguery provides absolutely zero information pertaining to the question of whether or not the "typical" person in the "middle class" is better or worse off. I tried finding historical data on median individual incomes as that would be the best way to illustrate the fallacy of the kind of approach represented above and could not. But I was able to at least approximate what median family income was in 1949 (1950 census).

Using the table 57 at http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/ ... 2p1ch3.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to determine that median family income in 1949 was estimated at somewhere between $2,999 and $3,499. According to the inflation calculator at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that is in the range of $27,033.46 - $31,540.54. And it was much closer to the lower end of the range as $2,999 is the point at or below which 48.4 percent of the families fell and $3,499 is the point at or below which 59.4 percent fell (median is point below which 50 percent fell).

According to the latest Census Bureau estimate, median family income in 2009 (latest year for which an estimate is available) was $51,989. So the "typical middle class" family of 2009 in the middle of the income distribution had somewhere in the range of 65% - 92% more buying power than the "typical middle class"family of 1949 did.

The fact that the ratio of executive's paycheck went from somewhere around 30:1 up to something like 500:1 has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the "typical" person or family is better or worse off. They are clearly better off now than they were around 1950. WAY better off.

Also, I assure you, you would get the same basic picture with median individual income. I have absolutely no doubt about that. It would get complicated because women were less likely to work and there were fewer two-income families. But I hope nobody is going to say people "had"to move to two incomes to stay even. They didn't stay even. Given that the median in 1949 was much closer to the lower end of the range described above we're talking about the "typical" family having close to twice the buying power now than it did around 1950.

So what if, say, families in the top 1 percent made even more progress than that? Why is it "bad" that families in the top 1 percent have 10, 100 or even 1000 times the buying power as they did around 1950 if the "typical" family makes twice as much? As the cliche goes, it's the politics of envy.






was betwee

Individuals and the government have gone into debt to maintain the same standard of living.

As for the ratio of management to worker pay, it's more a symptom than a cause. That being said, Wall Street banks are again paying record bonuses this year while the businesses they're not lending money too are not hiring or laying off workers. And Wall Street produces nothing.

Before you go off on your hate rant, please remember that executives at Wall Street banks aren't "average executives". I would consider myself an average executive, and as CEO of the credit union I took over on Friday, my salary is less than 10x the LOWEST paid employee, not the AVERAGE employee. In fact, if you averaged out every hourly employee at the CU, I'd say my salary is probably 6x theirs. I don't know who these 300-500x folks are, but they sure as FUCK aren't "average".

[kalm]

Individuals and the government have gone into debt to maintain the same standard of living.

As for the ratio of management to worker pay, it's more a symptom than a cause. That being said, Wall Street banks are again paying record bonuses this year while the businesses they're not lending money too are not hiring or laying off workers. And Wall Street produces nothing.

Before you go off on your hate rant, please remember that executives at Wall Street banks aren't "average executives". I would consider myself an average executive, and as CEO of the credit union I took over on Friday, my salary is less than 10x the LOWEST paid employee, not the AVERAGE employee. In fact, if you averaged out every hourly employee at the CU, I'd say my salary is probably 6x theirs. I don't know who these 300-500x folks are, but they sure as **** aren't "average".

That's why I didn't use you as an example. CU's are main street.

[BDKJMU]

You just walked onto the wrong landmine, D1B. You apparently haven't been paying attention, but I just lost my sixth and final grandparent. Bad faux pas.

You're only looking at the surface with defense spending. Did you know that we have an inordinate number of military members on freaking food stamps because their pay is so low compared to the private sector? That military suicide and divorce on the rise because of shrinking money and increased missions? It's dumb attitudes like yours that are going to get our country taken over by an unforseen enemy.

"The most recent study of food stamp usage by service members was conducted in 2003 before significant gains in military compensation occurred. Even at that time, only 2100 service members were on food stamps, which was about one tenth of one percent of the active duty force.

Since 2002, military basic pay has increased by 42 percent, housing allowances by 83 percent and food allowance by 40 percent -- compared to a 32 percent rise in private-sector salaries, according to Defense Department compensation officials.

Almost any service member who qualifies for food stamps today has a large family and lives in base housing. Most of them only qualify because the value of base housing is not considered as income by the Department of Agriculture in determining food stamp eligibility.

In fiscal 2008, a total of 328 service members received Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance (FSSA) at some point during the year. That was 0.02 percent of the 1.4 million on active duty."
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,216669,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AZGrizFan]

I just picked one to talk about but this kind of demagoguery provides absolutely zero information pertaining to the question of whether or not the "typical" person in the "middle class" is better or worse off. I tried finding historical data on median individual incomes as that would be the best way to illustrate the fallacy of the kind of approach represented above and could not. But I was able to at least approximate what median family income was in 1949 (1950 census).

Using the table 57 at http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/ ... 2p1ch3.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to determine that median family income in 1949 was estimated at somewhere between $2,999 and $3,499. According to the inflation calculator at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that is in the range of $27,033.46 - $31,540.54. And it was much closer to the lower end of the range as $2,999 is the point at or below which 48.4 percent of the families fell and $3,499 is the point at or below which 59.4 percent fell (median is point below which 50 percent fell).

According to the latest Census Bureau estimate, median family income in 2009 (latest year for which an estimate is available) was $51,989. So the "typical middle class" family of 2009 in the middle of the income distribution had somewhere in the range of 65% - 92% more buying power than the "typical middle class"family of 1949 did.

The fact that the ratio of executive's paycheck went from somewhere around 30:1 up to something like 500:1 has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the "typical" person or family is better or worse off. They are clearly better off now than they were around 1950. WAY better off.

Also, I assure you, you would get the same basic picture with median individual income. I have absolutely no doubt about that. It would get complicated because women were less likely to work and there were fewer two-income families. But I hope nobody is going to say people "had"to move to two incomes to stay even. They didn't stay even. Given that the median in 1949 was much closer to the lower end of the range described above we're talking about the "typical" family having close to twice the buying power now than it did around 1950.

So what if, say, families in the top 1 percent made even more progress than that? Why is it "bad" that families in the top 1 percent have 10, 100 or even 1000 times the buying power as they did around 1950 if the "typical" family makes twice as much? As the cliche goes, it's the politics of envy.






was betwee

Individuals and the government have gone into debt to maintain the same standard of living.

As for the ratio of management to worker pay, it's more a symptom than a cause. That being said, Wall Street banks are again paying record bonuses this year while the businesses they're not lending money too are not hiring or laying off workers. And Wall Street produces nothing.

Before you go off on your hate rant, please remember that executives at Wall Street banks aren't "average executives". I would consider myself an average executive, and as CEO of the credit union I took over on Friday, my salary is less than 10x the LOWEST paid employee, not the AVERAGE employee. In fact, if you averaged out every hourly employee at the CU, I'd say my salary is probably 6x theirs. I don't know who these 300-500x folks are, but they sure as **** aren't "average".

That's why I didn't use you as an example. CU's are main street.

You were responding to JSO's rant regarding the multiple of "average" executives pay to "average" employees and there might be 50-100 people in America where the CEO is making 300-500x the "average" employee....You'll excuse me if I assumed you were agreeing with his statistics...

[D1B]

You just walked onto the wrong landmine, D1B. You apparently haven't been paying attention, but I just lost my sixth and final grandparent. Bad faux pas.

You're only looking at the surface with defense spending. Did you know that we have an inordinate number of military members on freaking food stamps because their pay is so low compared to the private sector? That military suicide and divorce on the rise because of shrinking money and increased missions? It's dumb attitudes like yours that are going to get our country taken over by an unforseen enemy.

"The most recent study of food stamp usage by service members was conducted in 2003 before significant gains in military compensation occurred. Even at that time, only 2100 service members were on food stamps, which was about one tenth of one percent of the active duty force.

Since 2002, military basic pay has increased by 42 percent, housing allowances by 83 percent and food allowance by 40 percent -- compared to a 32 percent rise in private-sector salaries, according to Defense Department compensation officials.

Almost any service member who qualifies for food stamps today has a large family and lives in base housing. Most of them only qualify because the value of base housing is not considered as income by the Department of Agriculture in determining food stamp eligibility.

In fiscal 2008, a total of 328 service members received Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance (FSSA) at some point during the year. That was 0.02 percent of the 1.4 million on active duty."
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,216669,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any comment SuperDumbass?