Wal-mart Takes Steps To Protect Animals And Food Supply

XXX WAL-MART OPENING A FIN USA CA

Wal-Mart has been reflecting on animal welfare and has developed “five freedoms” that are designed to assure customers that products sold by Wal-Mart embody the humane treatment of animals, according to Forbes Magazine.

This is a major step for a the company.

The five freedoms define standards of acceptable animal welfare that will have profound benefits for both animals and consumers, writes Forbes.

The five freedoms are:

Freedom from Hunger and Thirst.
Freedom from Discomfort.
Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease.
Freedom to Express Normal Behavior.
Freedom from Fear and Distress.

Wal-Mart has put the livestock industry on notice that animals should have access to fresh water and a healthy diet.

They should also have proper shelters and resting areas; in other words, the deserve conditions which avoid mental suffering or cruel confinement. Animals should also have adequate veterinary care, including timely diagnosis and treatment of illnesses.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/05/22/walmart-animal-welfare-policy/27772285/

Britain Looks At Cutting Welfare For The Obese

In Britain, people who cannot work because they are overweight or suffering addiction problems could be threatened with losing their sickness benefits if they do not accept treatment under plans due to be outlined by Prime Minister David Cameron on Saturday.

The Conservatives will consider whether to reduce payments worth about £100 a week for those they consider could do more to help themselves by going on medical programs designed to make them to lose weight, stop taking drugs or give up alcohol, according to The Guardian.

The prime minister has asked professor Dame Carol Black, an adviser to the Department of Health, to examine whether it is appropriate to withhold benefits from those who refuse assistance.

In the video, Trews’ Russell Brand takes a look at the risks of sugar vs. the risks of marijuana.


Trews

Is Welfare A Bribe?

Welfare is a bribe because…you know…living in public housing must be “the life.”

U.S. Rep-elect Glenn Grothman (Republican, Wisconsin) thinks that welfare is a bribe.

He feels that the government is bribing single parents to stay unemployed and unmarried.

Majority Report video.

Who Is David Barton?

According to Wikipedia: “David Barton (born January 28, 1954) is an American evangelical Christian minister, conservative activist, and author. He founded WallBuilders, a Texas-based organization which promotes the view that it is a myth that the US Constitution insists on separation of church and state. Barton is the former vice chair of the Republican Party of Texas.”

Also, “In 2012, Barton’s New York Times best-seller The Jefferson Lies was voted ‘the least credible history book in print’ by the users of the History News Network website.”

Patheos.com claims Barton has had to walk back on many false claims he’s made over the years.

Barton does some work for conservative commentator Glenn Beck. On Beck’s show, Barton made the claim that the average welfare recipient gets $61K per year.  This was based on calculations done by Senator Jeff Sessions, who includes insurance and other payouts in his calculations.

Also, Sessions adds up many means-tested programs, which are aimed at people with low incomes, but then divides the figure by the number of people under the poverty level — even though millions of people above the poverty level receive these benefits.

The Washington Post gave the claim “three Pinnochios.”

Think Progress states:

“In reality, many of these benefits that families rely on are paltry and, worse, have recently shrunk. The value of benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF), formerly known as welfare, have fallen so that their purchasing power is less than what it was in 1996 for the vast majority of recipients.

A family of three that relies solely on TANF won’t be able to make market rent for a two-bedroom apartment and will live at just 50 percent of the poverty line, or $9,765 a year.

Food stamps from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were reduced in November to an average of less than $1.40 a meal  ($126.00) and more cuts are likely on their way after Congress agrees to a new farm bill.”

Secular Talk video.  Sources:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2013/06/19/capitoltourchanges/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-misleading-chart-on-welfare-spending/2013/02/20/1b40bcde-7ba4-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_blog.html

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/18/3081791/welfare-recipient-spending/

Huff Post: Some Immigrants May Be Eligible For Social Security Under Executive Order, But Not For Welfare Or Food Stamps

immigrants

According to the Huffington Post, the White House states that many immigrants in the United States illegally who apply for work permits under President Barack Obama’s new executive actions would be eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits upon reaching retirement age.

Under Obama’s actions, immigrants who are spared deportation could obtain work permits and a Social Security number. As a result, they would pay into the Social Security system through payroll taxes.

No such “lawfully present” immigrant, however, would be immediately entitled to the benefits because like all Social Security and Medicare recipients they would have to work 10 years to become eligible for retirement payments and health care.

To remain qualified, either Congress or future administrations would have to extend Obama’s actions so that those immigrants would still be considered lawfully present in the country.

None of the immigrants who would be spared deportation under Obama’s executive actions would be able to receive federal assistance such as welfare or food stamps, or other income-based aid.

They also would not be eligible to purchase health insurance in federal exchanges set up by the new health care law and they would not be able to apply for tax credits that would lower the cost of their health insurance.

The issue of benefits for immigrants who are illegally in the United States is a particularly sensitive one for the Obama administration. As a result, the White House has made it clear that none of the nearly 5 million immigrants affected by Obama’s actions would be eligible for federal assistance.

The Obama administration first denied younger immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally as children access to health care exchanges and tax credits in 2012, especially disappointing immigrant advocates.

Does Indiana Gov. Mike Pence Want Indiana Hunger Games?

“Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) explained on Tuesday that a new policy that could cut off food stamps for thousands of people in his state would be ‘ennobling’ for poor people.

“The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration announced last month that beginning in 2015, it would no longer request a waiver to the federal work requirement for certain people who use the SNAP program. Up to 65,000 single Hoosiers could lose food stamp benefits unless they are working 20 hours a week or attending job training.”

Pence mentioned to Fox News that 50,000 people had joined the Indiana workforce since 2008 so it was time to return to a “core principle” of welfare reform. The theory is good, but what if there are not enough jobs available?

TYT video.

Welfare Freeze Proposed In Britain?

GeorgeOsbourne1In the UK, George Osborne – a British Conservative Party politician – proposed a freeze on working-age welfare benefits if the Conservatives are elected in 2015.  But its effect may cause some to reflect.

The Chancellor calculates that it will save £3.2 billion over two years, 2016/17 and 2017/18. Treasury figures suggest the total welfare bill across those two years will be roughly £356 billion – so the saving would amount to about 0.9% of the total.

To put it another way, the freeze would not affect 99.1% of welfare spending. Nevertheless, £3 billion is not an insignificant sum and some will argue it would be an important contribution to cutting the deficit.

The question, however, is whether the real-terms cut targets the right people. Around two-thirds of those affected by the freeze are in working households.

Government figures show that some 67% of those receiving child or working tax credits are designated to be “in-work families”. Most of those in receipt of child benefit will also be working.

It will also hit some of the poorest families in Britain. Income Support, which is included in the freeze, is a benefit specifically targeted at the poor. Child benefit can be the difference between just getting by and going without the basics for some low-income families.

Linda Taylor – Reagan’s “Welfare Queen”

Linda Taylor, Nov. 27, 1974, Chicago

 

In 1976, Reagan gave his famous “Welfare Queen” speech about a woman who had committed welfare fraud.

“In Chicago, they found a woman who holds the record,” Reagan said at a campaign rally that year.  “She used 80 names, 30 addresses, 15 telephone numbers to collect food stamps, Social Security, veterans’ benefits for four nonexistent deceased veteran husbands, as well as welfare. Her tax-free cash income alone has been running $150,000 a year.”

He never actually used the term “Welfare Queen” in that speech, though he did in a radio address later. Credit for the term is given either to The Chicago Tribune or Jet Magazine, who used the term at about the same time, and before Reagan used it.

Several pundits over the years – from Paul Krugman to Chris Matthews – have dismissed Reagan’s talk of a “Welfare Queen” as a fictional story or a “gross exaggeration” used to rally Reagan’s base and drum up support for the cause of downsizing public aid programs.

It is true that the story was used to support Reagan’s agenda, but she actually was a real person – and her name was Linda Taylor.

The original story about Ms. Taylor came in 1974 from the The Chicago Tribune:

“Linda Taylor received Illinois welfare checks and food stamps, even tho[ugh] she was driving three 1974 autos—a Cadillac, a Lincoln,and a Chevrolet station wagon—claimed to own four South Side buildings, and was about to leave for a vacation in Hawaii,” wrote The Tribune.

The Tribune referenced a report that detailed a lifestyle of “false identities that seemed calculated to confuse our computerized, credit-oriented society.”

There was evidence that the 47-year-old Taylor had used three Social Security cards, 27 names, 31 addresses, and 25 phone numbers to fuel her thievery, and she had 30 different wigs.  Taylor had gained a reputation as a master of disguise.  She had tried to pull herself off as different ages, nationalities, and races.

As the Tribune and other outlets stayed on the story, those figures continued to rise. Reporters noted that Linda Taylor had used as many as 80 names, and that she’d received at least $150,000 in illicit welfare cash.

These would be the figures that Ronald Reagan would cite on the campaign trail in 1976.

The Legislative Advisory Committee on Public Aid told the Tribune, “She is without a doubt, the biggest welfare cheat of all time.”

One of the assistant state’s attorneys prosecuting Taylor told the UPI that the rumors about Taylor were “probably” true.  “But what makes me angry about all the stories is that most of them are not indictable,” she said. “We simply don’t have the facts on all of those things.”

The hard evidence—canceled AFDC checks, and Medicaid ID cards under multiple names— only allowed the state to charge her with stealing $8,000.

According to Wikipedia:  “Taylor was ultimately charged with committing $8,000 in fraud and having four aliases.  She was convicted of illegally obtaining 23 welfare checks using two aliases.  She was sentenced to two to six years in prison.”

In reality, Taylor had also been investigated for homicide, kidnapping, and even baby trafficking.  But she was never charged with those crimes. 

The welfare trial was in 1977, and in February 1978, Taylor entered Illinois’ Dwight Correctional Center.  When her sentence was up, she changed her name and left Chicago, and the cops who had pursued her in Illinois lost track of her whereabouts.

There seems to be a general consensus among those who have written about Linda Taylor that she was quite a dedicated criminal.

Whether it is fair to project her story onto an entire group of people (such as public aid recipients)  is another question.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Taylor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen