Queen Anne’s Lace in all its simple elegance fills the Virginia landscape in mid-summer and fall. Queen Anne’s Lace is actually a relative of the lowly carrot. In fact, you can smell carrot when you pick this plant which grows wild pretty much everywhere.
When I was a kid, I used to stick a bloom or two in ink or food coloring to dye the lace. I have long forgotten all the plant part names but I think I did learn a little something about how nutrients travel in the plant world by doing this simply kid trick.
Queen Anne’s Lace has other companions that hang out this time of year. Black Eyed Susans are one such road-side wild flower. What are other Virginia favorites?
Over 50% of people living in Scotland receive benefits of some sort.
Eric Cantor’s found a new job. $3.4 million for the first year. Good work if you can get it.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/02/pay-for-eric-cantors-wall-street-post-3-4-million/?mod=trending_now_3
I wish most of the politicians would follow him like lemmings and get the hell out of dodge.
Federal Judge in Arlington literally ruling out welcome mat for illegal immigrant minors, welcoming them to America and scheduling next appointment in 4 years – http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/brittany-m-hughes/judge-sets-hearings-illegal-alien-minors-4-years-now
@Furby McPhee
And THAT is one of the reasons we got rid of him.
Good riddance.
@Moon-howler
Over 50% of Americans receive benefits of some sort.
Of some sort. I am sure VA benefits and social security are not seen as “welfare.”
This Scotland statement was about welfare benefits, I believe.
Why is it wrong for people to collect Social Security and Medicare? They paid into the system and should get out of the system. The fact that politicians used the piggy bank should not force them to not take the benefit.
Oh dear God, are people who collect social security and Medicare now seen as welfare recipients? I think this might be where I start dropping the F-bomb! Lots of them.
@Moon-howler
We have about 35% of people on welfare.
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/354-percent-109631000-welfare
Define welfare.
I guess I feel that if 35 % of the population is on welfare something is very wrong in this country.
Yep. With a fair majority of recipients living in “red states” where they vote red instead of blue because they’re über conservative and don’t like immigrants and hand outs. (Tongue slightly in cheek). Maybe it not immigration they oppose – it’s the sharing?
Alaska leads the way for welfare per capita.
Well that state is pretty red and white, in all senses of the words.
Wednesday at a ceremony to appoint Texas lawyer Shaarik Zafar to be special representative to Muslim communities, Secretary of State John Kerry said it was the United States’ Biblical “responsibility” to “confront climate change,” including to protect “vulnerable Muslim majority counties.”
Earlier this year, he said:
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said global warming is as big a threat as terrorism in a speech in Indonesia, the world’s largest exporter of coal for power plants, seeking to burnish his credential as a climate champion before deciding on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project.
Speaking yesterday in the capital of Jakarta, the last stop on his three-nation Asia tour, Kerry called on the international community — nations and individuals — to do more now as addressing climate change required a global solution. The speech came against the backdrop of the eruption of the Mount Kelud volcano that disrupted air travel in the region and forced the cancellation of Kerry’s planned meeting today with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
THANK GOD that he didn’t become President. He’s dumber than a bag of rocks.
Of course, what does that say about the person who thought that he would be a great Sec. of State?
So someone is stupid because they disagree with you on climate change?
I guess I should probably go in for that missing brain scan then….
@Lyssa
Notice….I didn’t split up the population.
And I’d be interested to discover who in those “red states” are getting the welfare. For example, the welfare in Louisiana goes to the blue cities……
Point. It is a generality. I think the NYTimes did a by state and by county map of distribution of federal funds.
@Cargosquid
For example, the welfare in Louisiana goes to the blue cities……
Nonsense. For instance, Bossier Parish went for Romney (72%) and 14,653 people are on Snap. East Carroll Parish went for Obama and only 3387 people are on Snap.
Check it out.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html?_r=0
Anybody hear from George Harris lately. Is he o.k.?
George and Carrie are vacationing in Maine for about 3 weeks. They went over to Bangor and sent me a picture of them in front of Stephen King’s house.
Next time he writes I will tell him you asked about him.
@Pat.Herve
And did you check ORLEANS Parish? And Baton Rouge?
@Cargosquid
I did not – but you stated that the welfare goes to the cities – and it does not. It also does not go to just minorities – a statement made by many people.
There are a lot of poor white folks in that region from what I have been told.
@Pat.Herve
I stated that the welfare goes to the blue cities…yes. Which it does. It also goes to the other parishes. But the cities get the most of the welfare, purely due to population.
And to make sure….I did not mention minorities.
Don’t you think you could probably say that about all states? Cities have the densest populations.
Love Queen Anne’s Lace. I have a gorgeous and very hearty crop of sunflowers this year for the first time. I hadn’t had much luck with them before.
Each year I want to do sunflowers and each year I have a sunlight/dog crisis. No sunlight in the front. The dogs have the backyard. The two boy dogs lift their legs on everything. I did have some small sunflowers out front front the bird feed. You are very lucky to get a hearty crop. Will you harvest the seeds?
I ended up with a bumper crop of corn from squirrel cobs.
That is sad about all that welfare. Understandable to a degree. Official stats on Black unemployment went from 10.7% to 11.4% last month. Black teens? Forget about it. Hispanic unemployment at 7.5%, while the Whites stand at 5.3% in a 6.1% national average. And a new record set for people outside the labor force — 62.8%, matching a 36-year record. Not good.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/250k-virginians-lose-health-care-due-obamacare_804749.html
If you like your healthcare, you can keep your health care. Yeah….right.
Senator Warner’s efforts help achieve this.
Well done, Senator. Thanks for screwing over more Virginians.
Dick Chaney is at it again. Go to war!!!
@punchak
If you didn’t see the speech last night, President Obama wants to go to war.
I have a real difficult time with those statistics. In the first place, Are we talking about people who cannot support themselves or people who have EARNED government benefits. Medicare, social security, federal pensions and Veterans benefits are all things that most people have paid in to over their careers.
If someone has a parent living with them receiving social security, every person in that household is counted. That is just a false picture of the state of the nation.
As for the increase under Obama? Hmmmmm recession and unemployment could do that increase in an afternoon. Can Cargo find a statistic that wasn’t from some right wing publication?
And that 20% includes food stamps and unemployment insurance. Still not great, but better than a fictional 35%.
@Moon-howler
“Can Cargo find a statistic that wasn’t from some right wing publication?”
Probably, but those would be just cheerleading for the President and not trustworthy.
Trustworthy? Jesus Christ. You are paranoid. You think everything that doesn’t make the John Birch society look like a liberal group is cheerleading for the president?
How about just straight, well, presented statistics if you are going to try to make a point.
Quote from Cargo’s link: “109, 631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded “means-tested programs” — also known as welfare — as of the 4th quarter of 2012, according to data released Tuesday from the Census Bureau.”
The last phrase in the quote is a link to the figures from that old right-wing outfit called the Census Bureau. That makes it 35.4 % of American households involved in some way in the receipt of welfare funds. Later on in the article, it is made clear that these totals do NOT include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, veterans benefits, and other programs which are not means-tested.
What’s with the 35% vs 20%? Where did that come from? I kind of think that means-tested programs, like foodstamps, for example, would usually touch everybody in a house where welfare is needed.
Absolutely not. Plenty of homes have people multigenerational living arrangements. It could be friends or family. One of those people might have some sort of assistance. If one person receives assistance, then all the people get counted. For instance, someone could have a parent living with them and that parent might be an ssi recipient in addition to regular social security. An adult child could move back home after a divorce. The children could be on an schips program or any number of different scenes. Therefore all 5 people would get counted as a household receiving benefits.
It really is deceptive information. I am skeptical also. Some right wing publication just throwing out numbers? I want a real link to the census bureau and the source they are quoting from.
@Moon-howler
Your comment about trustworthiness is mirrored in your reaction to an article sourced from the Census Bureau.
The statements are quite clear.
34% of HOUSEHOLDS.
109, 631,000 Americans LIVED IN households.
The article is about the number of households that receive benefits. NOT the number of Americans.’
Its only “deceptive” to people that think anything to the right of MSNBC is lying.
I don’t think news sources to the right of MSNBC are lying.
The article is poorly written. It flip flops between households and number of people. Actually it is about numbers of Americans part of the time.
Here’s the situation again. My household (not really me) might get counted if I had a daughter move home with three kids who got Schips. All of a sudden I would be a “welfare” household. That’s the reason the information presented is just not reliable.
When you start talking “household” that sweeps up pretty much everyone in it.
@Moon-howler
All it does is say, when referring to household is just that. The census said household. It could be one person or 19. But the census statement does not mention the number of people.
The article breaks it down quite well. I’m sorry that you were not able to follow it.
The problem with the “households” number is that it artificially inflates the total. The total number of PEOPLE who receive welfare benefits is about 20%, but the number of HOUSEHOLDS is 34%. You could easily further inflate the number by saying the number of COMMUNITIES getting welfare is …, etc. You could get the number to 100% pretty quickly with this method.
Look, this is pretty simple- the total number of people on welfare (including food stamps and unemployment, which strictly speaking isn’t welfare, but for the sake of argument is included), is 65 million. Divide that by the total U.S. population of 314 million and you get 20%.
Welfare statistics used: http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
That IS a “real link” to the Department of Commerce/ US Census Bureau site. Punch it and verify or disprove the CNS article yourself. Like Cargo said, over 35% of US households have one or more residents who are on means-tested welfare. Playing around with statistics isn’t going to change the fact that we ought to be ashamed, as a First World nation, of that number as cited by the Bureau.
“Unemployment” is, indeed, not part of the means-tested welfare system and has no part in the 35.4% of households figure.
Its a poorly written article that implies that one thing when in essence, that really isn’t how things are.
If I rent a room to a single mom with kids receiving services, the household is counted, even though I might have a decent income.
Read what middleman has to say. I give up.
And that isn’t what Cargo said.
Bosch. Middleman is making up his own stats.
“unemployment, which strictly speaking isn’t welfare, but for the sake of argument is included.”
Horsefeathers.
I have lost track of the point. It is a poorly written article that vacillates in the way information is presented. What we can walk away with is that 35% of Americans are NOT on welfare.
if people are claiming SNAP and unemployment – are they counted twice? How about disability and SNAP?
Wolve, I’m going to do this one more time just for you. Here’s a direct quote from Cargo’s linked article:
“But the 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time.”
Please notice it says “living in households,” not “households.” That doesn’t mean, as you stated: “over 35% of US households have one or more residents who are on means-tested welfare.” The 109.6 million number reflects RESIDENTS in the household, not total households. They divide that number by the 309 million total population number to get the 35%. This means that they are counting every single individual that lives in any household where anyone is getting any one of the benefits that comprise the given definition of welfare. That’s VERY different, and an important distinction, and that is why the 35% number is wrong. If you counted every person in every household receiving Social Security benefits, for example, you would likely get a number much higher than the 58 million people actually receiving the benefits.
Wolve, I’ve clearly shown previously what the real number is and linked the data I used to arrive at that figure. If you don’t (or don’t want to) understand the calculation that’s fine, but it’s all right there in black and white.
I’ll thank you to refrain from accusing me of being disingenuous to cover your lack of understanding. Self- imposed ignorance is not only sad, it’s also no excuse for bad behavior.
Pat makes a good point. I am a numbers and data kinda guy given my working within Aging & Disability programs & services. Use Census data a lot in both areas.
When looking at Census Table 1 for Households, I see the “Age of Householder” with the greatest number being age 65 years and older (27,873). You could have one of these Older Americans who is receiving Social Security, Veterans compensation, and Medicare. So there would be a count in each category on Table 2 about “Selected Programs” which acknowledges “people may receive benefits from more than one program”.
For this same Older American, he or she could be on Social Security, Medicaid and the SNAP programs. Toss in they have legal guardianship of one or more grandchildren, and they could be receiving TANF and/or WIC.
I can agree with comments the article is written with a slant, but hey, that is – as they used to say – what sells newspapers! 🙂
Thank you, as always, for your insight, Ray.
O.K., middleman, I will concede that I misread population for households. However, your stat calculations are still neither here nor there. HHS says the total of Americans on welfare (as of 2011) was 23.1%. Their calculations included only TANF, SSI, and SNAP. The Census Bureau says 34.5% but adds benefits from public housing; Medicaid; Women, Infants, Children (WIC);and other cash contributions to TANF, SSI, and SNAP — which seems a hell of a lot more complete than the HHS calculation. And why do you keep yammering about how many in a household are not actually recipients of welfare? I think you are blowing smoke. I will wager that, in the listed programs, the benefits are spread among most or all of the residents of the home. I say they are all welfare beneficiaries regardless of whose name may be on the welfare check.
Perhaps we should be talking about why so many people are in the position of needing assistance rather than talking about why a household might get swept up in the count.
Let’s start with people living with parents, grandparents or other relatives. I do not have adult children living with me but if I did, what is the likelihood that the adult child could be unemployed and have a SNAP card? What if that adult child had children or a baby? WIC or SNAP could easily be part of the package deal, even though the homeowners weren’t eligible for any form of assistance. What if this same homeowner moved an elderly parent into the home. That parent could be receiving SSI.
Usually divorce is the guilty party that throws women and children into the position of applying for benefits. It certainly reduces the standard of living in many cases. Unemployment is another guilty party.
Change in circumstance is often the cause in our area rather than generational poverty.
a very broad and wrong interpretation. So an unmarried mother living at her parents home and collecting WIC – the parents and all the siblings are counted in your mind? No, in that household, there are only two beneficiaries – or at least is should only be counted as two. Or a disabled child?
http://bristowbeat.com/news/dems-not-planning-to-run-brentsville-candidate-for-supervisor/
While I’m not happy the Democrats seem to not have a candidate for Brentsville, I understand why Shaw is running in the 13th and I wish him the best.
@Pat.Herve
Which is why the Census was counting the number of households.
@Moon-howler
“Perhaps we should be talking about why so many people are in the position of needing assistance rather than talking about why a household might get swept up in the count.”
Um….the continuing economic slowdown. The lack of job growth. Government policies that make life more expensive.
Must everything begin with the sarcastic “um?”
Economic slowdown. Blame Obama. What has the Congress done to pass a Jobs Bill? Nada.
@Moon-howler
The “um” was because its obvious. There is no question about why.
Congress? Sure. Tell the Senate to actually VOTE on bills being sent to them.
Only in your world. The rest of us give those kinds of questions more thought.
Furthermore, it’s sarcastic.
@Moon-howler
Yes…it was sarcastic.
You may give it thought…but I doubt that it is MORE thought.
Please…. explain to us what else it might be? Please explain to us what the Democrats have done to make the US a more business friendly place concentrating on job growth.