Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Asshole party organization wants to selectively cut food stamps for 'able-bodied' recipients, those to the Left say it will merely increase hunger. Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just political theater. 

I listened to the Alabama governor talk about the work requirement changes to the program on NPR and the follow up commentary.  Able-Bodied means work or volunteer.  Volunteer is 'verified' by the food stamp recipient calling, writing, or going on line and saying they volunteered.  There is no other verification.  If you miss a call, there's an appeal process to get it back.  You can also re-enroll at any time.  There is no penalty for getting kicked off.  People with medical exemptions or whom are disabled are excused from this requirement.

From the republican side, it's adding a 'self report' step to a program that already has numerous checks and is, frankly, a pretty trivial amount of money in the scheme of things.  It has a 'nag' factor and that's about it.  From the democratic side, the only people who are getting caught are people who have no medical excuse and can't seem to manage a phone call.   And, once they miss their call, they THEN call and get the whole thing turned back on.  BTW:  My wife was a case manager - EVERYONE has a contact somewhere if they're getting assistance and they get ahold of them all the time.

Just a waste and is really dumb fight IMHO.  Republicans wanting to expand government bureaucracy is backward and they'd do better putting the money in some sort of positive advertisement,  encouragement, or outreach if they really want people off food stamps.  On the other side, the democrats trot out people who are clearly disabled being 'kicked off the rolls' and scream SEEE!!!  - because somehow shining a light on a bureaucracy that cant actually administer a simple program without fucking it up makes people 'confident in government'.

These are the WORST arguments ever.  Neither side wins IMHO.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 I'd like to see food stamp money increased and modified so that you can only buy food with your EBT card, whatever that takes, and then drop AFDC and rent subsidies, cable subsidies, and all other bogus and unnecessary crap. Keep Medicaid. Feeding and caring for the poor is a good thing but until our poor realize the consequences of having children they can't afford, they will continue to be a burden to real citizens who have to make hard decisions and work their asses off on two jobs to make ends meet.

Where will they live? I dunno but until we all come up with a solution the issue grows worse by the day. This is what LBJ is chortling about in his grave. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 3to1 said:

The Asshole party organization wants to selectively cut food stamps for 'able-bodied' recipients, those to the Left say it will merely increase hunger. Thoughts?

Welfare reform in the 90s. The Dems fought it and when Clinton signed it he had to or the congress was going to over ride his veto.

Gore claimed we would have increased crime and increased homeless. Then when Gore ran for President he was thumping his chest and saying that he was part of the administration that reformed welfare with no increase in crime or homeless.

Sometimes you have to expect people to do better in order for them to do so. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

 I'd like to see food stamp money increased and modified so that you can only buy food with your EBT card, whatever that takes, and then drop AFDC and rent subsidies, cable subsidies, and all other bogus and unnecessary crap. Keep Medicaid. Feeding and caring for the poor is a good thing but until our poor realize the consequences of having children they can't afford, they will continue to be a burden to real citizens who have to make hard decisions and work their asses off on two jobs to make ends meet.

Where will they live? I dunno but until we all come up with a solution the issue grows worse by the day. This is what LBJ is chortling about in his grave. 

I see you’ve joined the Reich...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, J28 said:

I see you’ve joined the Reich...

Last week you said I was a Socialist. I'm a pragmatist and problem solver. Got better ideas? Let's hear them. 

The poor need to get in the game. There's plenty of work that needs doing but paying rent is pretty basic stuff. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

 I'd like to see food stamp money increased and modified so that you can only buy food with your EBT card, whatever that takes, and then drop AFDC and rent subsidies, cable subsidies, and all other bogus and unnecessary crap. Keep Medicaid. Feeding and caring for the poor is a good thing but until our poor realize the consequences of having children they can't afford, they will continue to be a burden to real citizens who have to make hard decisions and work their asses off on two jobs to make ends meet.

Where will they live? I dunno but until we all come up with a solution the issue grows worse by the day. This is what LBJ is chortling about in his grave. 

So poor people are imaginary? GREAT! Then we can just ignore them! :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Last week you said I was a Socialist. I'm a pragmatist and problem solver. Got better ideas? Let's hear them. 

The poor need to get in the game. There's plenty of work that needs doing but paying rent is pretty basic stuff. 

problem is a multi generational/culture that is OK with living on and not working merely collecting the many governemnt handouts and programs...of course they have small scale cash businesses...as do the hip little shops/restaurants  millennials run and frequent ...that hide taxable income then vote for more big government programs

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

problem is a multi generational/culture that is OK with living on and not working merely collecting the any governemnt handouts...of course they have small scale cash businesses...as do the hip little shops/restaurants  millennials run and frequent ...that hide taxable income then vote for more big government programs

Is there a suggestion in there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Food stamps are a patronising insult. Take away someones self respect and rights to make basic spending choices and you erode their self confidence and pride. What are food stamps but a form of 19C demeaning charity/punishment...Just give people money to make their own purchasing choices ffs.

It's what? $30 pw?...you cant buy many beers or tabs for that and people still have to eat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shortforbob said:

Food stamps are a patronising insult. Take away someones self respect and rights to make basic spending choices and you erode their self confidence and pride. What are food stamps but a form of 19C demeaning charity...Just give people money to make their own purchasing choices ffs.

Problem with that is they have a history of making bad choices....witness their lot in life....giving them cash instead of stamps is like giving a small child a loaded gun....

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, J28 said:

Other folks will be along shortly to condemn your extreme views on the poor.

So you got nuttin, and trying to slip in with a moderate comment for a change. Beyond that, I'm not worried about opinions on my opinions. We need to get beyond pussy footing around the poor. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Problem with that is they have a history of making bad choices....witness their lot in life....giving them cash instead of stamps is like giving a small child a loaded gun....

People have a right to make bad choices..hell..some might even make good choices.:rolleyes:

How bad a choice can you make for $30 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

People have a right to make bad choices..hell..some might even make good choices.:rolleyes:

How bad a choice can you make for $30 ?

Lottery tickets when baby needs new shoes. 

A new tattoo? 

You're a silly gal, Mel. If we were talking $30, we wouldn't be talking.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the lotteries, they all claim to be education supporting, and I think we all feel that American Education has failed the great unwashed. How about the lotteries fund food stamps and the folks who can't seem to make it on their own?  Just give the poor money from the ridiculous lottery pools to the poor who support them. Works for me. Call it the Almost Free Money Lottery. Lose the half billion payouts and have bunches more 50k winners. You can turn yer life around on 50K now and then. Getting the poor off the government teats would do wonders for race relations. Maybe some of them good ole boys would leave Appalachia and look fer work. Coal ain't coming back.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

People have a right to make bad choices..hell..some might even make good choices.:rolleyes:

How bad a choice can you make for $30 ?

The point is that after those bad choices they're still hungry, and most here aren't willing to let them suffer the complete consequences of those bad choices.  Hence - the controls to limit those bad choices to avoid the consequences of bad decisions.    I happen to agree with you, w/the stipulation that you be responsible for your own outcomes.  (Excluding of course those very few who are physically or developmentally incapable of such )

Link to post
Share on other sites

 I was actually ON the food stamp program in the 70's out in the great Democratic state of Hawaii. Student at UH, working my way thru college, completely self supporting. My father sent applications to his 3 kids (all doing the same at UH), we filled them out, just to keep him happy. We were getting by OK, on about $60/mo in food costs. We ALL got approved, full ride. $90 a month!!!!!. Note: this was back when you got a computer punch card in the mail, you took that to the bank 'food stamp' line, they took the card & gave you little books of paper money (think Monopoly level). You could only buy raw food stuff, no prepared food, nothing un-edible. At the store, you stood in the 'food stamp' designated line again. I was on the program for 3 yrs.

      So I feel the current program of EBT cards allowing you to buy almost anything is overly generous. And handing out cash is pure stupidity. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, longy said:

 I was actually ON the food stamp program in the 70's out in the great Democratic state of Hawaii. Student at UH, working my way thru college, completely self supporting. My father sent applications to his 3 kids (all doing the same at UH), we filled them out, just to keep him happy. We were getting by OK, on about $60/mo in food costs. We ALL got approved, full ride. $90 a month!!!!!. Note: this was back when you got a computer punch card in the mail, you took that to the bank 'food stamp' line, they took the card & gave you little books of paper money (think Monopoly level). You could only buy raw food stuff, no prepared food, nothing un-edible. At the store, you stood in the 'food stamp' designated line again. I was on the program for 3 yrs.

      So I feel the current program of EBT cards allowing you to buy almost anything is overly generous. And handing out cash is pure stupidity.

They scam the system even with EBT cards...the freeloaders sell the EBT at a discount to face value in exchange for cash and buy drugs or booze

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

I keep hoping your posts will get better, but they never do. Always simple stock dogmatic answers to complex problems. The "welfare reform" of the 90s has produced the "disability trap" of the 00s and 10s. It's like welfare was, but shittier and with less incentive to work. Great work on the reform guys!

Wisconsin originated the work for welfare W2 program under Tommy Thompson. Phenomnally successful until the lefties watered it down under Diamond Jim Doyle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
5 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Update.

I wonder how many folks who support the President are going to get hit by this?

This is exactly the WRONG kind of constraint to make.   The SNAP program helps people help themselves, and doesn't encourage dependency.  You want to curb abuse?  Target the people who sell their SNAP benefits for cash, ya don't hurt the people who have the best chance at improving their situation w/a little help - it's THOSE folks who are going to in turn help the future generations avoid dependency. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s a lot of research that cash is the most effective subsidy. We, as a people, have a problem with the few that would use cash to buy booze or drugs...

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Care to point at some of this "lot of research"?

the 3rd one is the cliff's-notes version. 

 

https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/safetynets/publication/food-vouchers-or-cash-transfers

 

https://www.nber.org/papers/w7092

 

https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/01/provide-cash-or-benefits-in-kind.html

 

Basically, it's how much do you REALLY support "liberty"?  Careful on how you answer, or we'll have another little bit of hypocrisy to mock. hahaha

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

Thanks - I'll read thru those in an hour or so when I get off this interminable telecon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

the point is to get the base cheering that 3 million people are off food stamps.

not to make things better for anyone.

How many of those who will "cheer" live in the states with higher numbers?

fs.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

rural Oregon is often dirt poor. This allows you to breakdown participation by congressional district:

https://www.frac.org/maps/snap-cd/snap-congress.html

Thanks for the link - reading thru the paper Flash shared earlier - I'll check this out when I've gotten thru that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

the 3rd one is the cliff's-notes version. 

 

https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/safetynets/publication/food-vouchers-or-cash-transfers

 

https://www.nber.org/papers/w7092

 

https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/01/provide-cash-or-benefits-in-kind.html

 

Basically, it's how much do you REALLY support "liberty"?  Careful on how you answer, or we'll have another little bit of hypocrisy to mock. hahaha

I found the 3rd article to not say much of anything.  The 1st took me a while to get thru, as I had to look up much of the economics jargon it contained.   I appreciated the articulation of "paternalism and externalities", and that the authors recognized that while those weren't directly applicable to a purely economic analysis of the comparison between vouchers and cash disbursements, that the reality was that those things should factor into the consideration.     Going thru the second now - 

To your question:  I support liberty up and to the point that someone is able to exercise it responsibly enough to manage the outcomes of their decisions, such that those decisions don't cause harm for anyone else.   If we consider food stamps - I have no problem with a restriction that that benefit be used for food only.   I don't see that as an infringement, as nobody is saying "you can't buy cigarettes" - rather, "we aren't going to fund that for you".   

Applying your question to the inverse consideration, if you provided a pure-cash disbursement, and the spending decisions were unwise, would you advocate letting that individual, and more importantly their families, suffer the ramification of those poor decisions?    If not, then that argues that the "paternalism and externalities" mentioned in the 1st cite are valid considerations.  If so - then it would support simply providing the cash, and letting the individual do with it what they will.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2019 at 11:28 PM, Shortforbob said:

Food stamps are a patronising insult. Take away someones self respect and rights to make basic spending choices and you erode their self confidence and pride. 

Of course you are right - just because people are living on government handouts doesn’t they shouldn’t be free to spend that money on what ever drugs, alcohol and cigarettes they want.

After all it is far more important that we feed their self esteem and their habits than they feed their children. Apart from your ‘self esteem’ bullshit, can you offer another argument against food stamps? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I found the 3rd article to not say much of anything.  The 1st took me a while to get thru, as I had to look up much of the economics jargon it contained.   I appreciated the articulation of "paternalism and externalities", and that the authors recognized that while those weren't directly applicable to a purely economic analysis of the comparison between vouchers and cash disbursements, that the reality was that those things should factor into the consideration.     Going thru the second now - 

To your question:  I support liberty up and to the point that someone is able to exercise it responsibly enough to manage the outcomes of their decisions, such that those decisions don't cause harm for anyone else.   If we consider food stamps - I have no problem with a restriction that that benefit be used for food only.   I don't see that as an infringement, as nobody is saying "you can't buy cigarettes" - rather, "we aren't going to fund that for you".   

Applying your question to the inverse consideration, if you provided a pure-cash disbursement, and the spending decisions were unwise, would you advocate letting that individual, and more importantly their families, suffer the ramification of those poor decisions?    If not, then that argues that the "paternalism and externalities" mentioned in the 1st cite are valid considerations.  If so - then it would support simply providing the cash, and letting the individual do with it what they will.  

Slippery slope there, ain't it? The folks who value personal liberty might say that an individual, assuming they are not disabled or otherwise incompetent, would be the person best able to maximize their economic outcome - and not some gov't agency.

But those individual liberty advocates are also the first ones to want to take away women's right to choose, so maybe they aren't so into personal liberty at all.

 

My view? It's paternalism run amok. Whether it's cash awards vs. restricted vouchers, or the abortion debate, or the kids locked up at the border.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Of course you are right - just because people are living on government handouts doesn’t they shouldn’t be free to spend that money on what ever drugs, alcohol and cigarettes they want.

After all it is far more important that we feed their self esteem and their habits than they feed their children. Apart from your ‘self esteem’ bullshit, can you offer another argument against food stamps? 

The basic academic one is the one I just mentioned. Only an individual is able to maximize their own economic good, assuming some base level of competency. 

Me? I don't really mind restricting some of the more controversial items like ciggies, alcohol and legal recreational drugs, because if you don't restrict them, the reich goes all fucktard on killing all SNAP cause some dude bought some cigs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Slippery slope there, ain't it? The folks who value personal liberty might say that an individual, assuming they are not disabled or otherwise incompetent, would be the person best able to maximize their economic outcome - and not some gov't agency.

But those individual liberty advocates are also the first ones to want to take away women's right to choose, so maybe they aren't so into personal liberty at all.

 

My view? It's paternalism run amok. Whether it's cash awards vs. restricted vouchers, or the abortion debate, or the kids locked up at the border.

It is a slippery slope - and I don't have all the answers, but, I do think that some constraints as to how public assistance is consumed are valid.  Edited to add:  I'd even support your premise to the point that an individual personally exhibits irresponsible decision making to the point of causing harm to someone else, ie, they spend the income without buying groceries and keeping the lights on for the kids.  If you would couple your "cash disbursement" with an objective standard beyond which intervention would be warranted?  I think I could support that. 

Specifically what do you think is paternalism run amok?   Serious question, not poking.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2019 at 11:34 PM, Shortforbob said:

People have a right to make bad choices..hell..some might even make good choices.:rolleyes:

How bad a choice can you make for $30 ?

That’s a little less than what each of those kids who die at music festivals pay for the pill that kills them. How about the choice between $30 worth of nutritious food for their families or a bottle of Jack? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

The basic academic one is the one I just mentioned. Only an individual is able to maximize their own economic good, assuming some base level of competency. 

Me? I don't really mind restricting some of the more controversial items like ciggies, alcohol and legal recreational drugs, because if you don't restrict them, the reich goes all fucktard on killing all SNAP cause some dude bought some cigs.

But meth is ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

The basic academic one is the one I just mentioned. Only an individual is able to maximize their own economic good, assuming some base level of competency. 

Me? I don't really mind restricting some of the more controversial items like ciggies, alcohol and legal recreational drugs, because if you don't restrict them, the reich goes all fucktard on killing all SNAP cause some dude bought some cigs.

Of course - poor individual decision making doesn't happen often enough to warrant consideration and mitigation - it's all about the evil bastards on the right.   Damn but you make it hard to respond to your comments with any degree of civility. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

But meth is ok.

Thread drift - you know who pioneered meth use? Nazi's. Brits and American followed suit - making the super soldiers.  This later translated into all those happy diet pills for housewives.  Back to it - tobacco and alcohol should be verbotten. If they want to save up and buy some nice steaks to celebrate? Fine. I am distressed when I see people loading up on empty calories, white bread, cheap meats etc but no easy way to fix that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

That’s a little less than what each of those kids who die at music festivals pay for the pill that kills them. How about the choice between $30 worth of nutritious food for their families or a bottle of Jack? 

Unfortunately, many on food stamps don't know what nutritious means and would spend that $30 on hot Cheetos and Mountain Dew.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Unfortunately, many on food stamps don't know what nutritious means and would spend that $30 on hot Cheetos and Mountain Dew.  

Restrict it!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:
13 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

That’s a little less than what each of those kids who die at music festivals pay for the pill that kills them. How about the choice between $30 worth of nutritious food for their families or a bottle of Jack? 

Unfortunately, many on food stamps don't know what nutritious means and would spend that $30 on hot Cheetos and Mountain Dew.  

Ever heard of "food deserts"?  Some of the areas in which poverty is highest there are no grocery stores.  Corner shops do not stock a selection of produce, lean meats, and other nutritious items.  Some will say that is because folks don't want that.  I find that to be the lazy answer.  

Processed foods fill a void, and have been carefully engineered (yes, I mean engineered) to sate.  Read "Fast Food Nation" and "The Omnivore's Dilemma".

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

Ever heard of "food deserts"?  Some of the areas in which poverty is highest there are no grocery stores.  Corner shops do not stock a selection of produce, lean meats, and other nutritious items.  Some will say that is because folks don't want that.  I find that to be the lazy answer.  

Processed foods fill a void, and have been carefully engineered (yes, I mean engineered) to sate.  Read "Fast Food Nation" and "The Omnivore's Dilemma".

I taught in an area of Detroit where the nearest real grocery store was about 5 miles away and most families I dealt with did not have their own transportation so, the corner gas station is where they shopped.  Yes, I know the term.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

Ever heard of "food deserts"?  Some of the areas in which poverty is highest there are no grocery stores.  Corner shops do not stock a selection of produce, lean meats, and other nutritious items.  Some will say that is because folks don't want that.  I find that to be the lazy answer.  

 Processed foods fill a void, and have been carefully engineered (yes, I mean engineered) to sate.  Read "Fast Food Nation" and "The Omnivore's Dilemma".

Plastic wrapped twinkies don't have to be pulled off the shelves in 3 days, or be refrigerated.  Another contributing factor is that someone w/limited mobility will often constrain their choices to that which is immediately available.  Personal choice isn't the only factor in this calculus. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
0
 Advanced issues found
 
 
1
23 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

Specifically what do you think is paternalism run amok?   Serious question, not poking.    

The whole notion of knowing what goods (food or housing, etc) are best for someone else? 

It's almost the exact definition from the dictionary:

 

Paternalism is action that limits a person's or group's liberty or autonomy and is intended to promote their own good.[1] Paternalism can also imply that the behavior is against or regardless of the will of a person, or also that the behavior expresses an attitude of superiority.[2] Paternalism, paternalistic and paternalist have all been used as a pejorative.[3]

The word paternalism is from the Latin pater "father" via the adjective paternus "fatherly", which in Medieval Latin became paternalis. Some, such as John Stuart Mill, think paternalism to be appropriate towards children: saying of liberty "It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood."[4] Paternalism towards adults is sometimes thought of as treating them as if they were children.[5]

Link to post
Share on other sites

So - any paternalism, or consideration of external factors in constraining the consumption of  public assistance is "run amok"? 

Your premise, Flash, seems to be dependent upon the decision making competency of all individuals receiving public assistance.  While I'm certain that many, likely even a majority are competent, how do we handle the still significant number who aren't?  

If you're willing to remove any paternalistic consideration, are you just as willing to then let those individuals personally deal with the ramifications of their decisions?  What about their kids?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - any paternalism, or consideration of external factors in constraining the consumption of  public assistance is "run amok"? 

Your premise, Flash, seems to be dependent upon the decision making competency of all individuals receiving public assistance.  While I'm certain that many, likely even a majority are competent, how do we handle the still significant number who aren't?  

If you're willing to remove any paternalistic consideration, are you just as willing to then let those individuals personally deal with the ramifications of their decisions?  What about their kids?  

Your response is classic paternalism. There will never be a perfect system. Ever. Not if you do nothing at all, not if you try to manage each person. 

The best we can do is get to 90%.

90% means you trust people to make the best decisions they can make.

Or - you go big gov't and send them food directly. My grandmother used to get gov't cheese every month. An extra $8 on her SS check would have been better for all involved. Cheaper for the Feds, more utility for the grandmother.

 

As to kids, if the parents are drug addicts and spend all their money on meth, you take the kids away. Duh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Of course you are right - just because people are living on government handouts doesn’t they shouldn’t be free to spend that money on what ever drugs, alcohol and cigarettes they want.

After all it is far more important that we feed their self esteem and their habits than they feed their children. Apart from your ‘self esteem’ bullshit, can you offer another argument against food stamps? 

I used to spend my FTB on my kids teeth and educational stuff. If i'd have been given food stamps i couldn't do that.

Given the number of people that are on food stamps in the USA, I doubt the majority are drug users and alcoholics.:rolleyes:

Part of the problem with entrenched poverty is cyclic debt, payday loans, late payment fees etc. I think I'd like to choose whether to buy $30 of overpriced shit at a local convenience store or a bus ticket to a decent store with decent ingredients and $5 left to pay some debt down.People can't get out of poverty  with a packet of cheerios.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2019 at 3:14 AM, 3to1 said:

The Asshole party organization wants to selectively cut food stamps for 'able-bodied' recipients, those to the Left say it will merely increase hunger. Thoughts?

Yeah!  I think those people need to work harder to help the rich pricks get even richer!  Get off your lazy asses and start thinking about what makes America great - insane corporate profits, over the top mega yachts, gold toilets - this is how to MAGA!  So let's get to work people!

And if you need any motivation to get off your ass, here it is:

863832195_shutterstock_editorial_9224878a_huge1.thumb.jpg.cbba2050af688dac97e04d45eb95296c.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Unfortunately, many on food stamps don't know what nutritious means and would spend that $30 on hot Cheetos and Mountain Dew.  

But a least not the Vodka to put in the Mountain Dew. I don't know what a hot cheeto is but I am guessing it is something with the same nutritional value of our homegrown bogan's favorite fare, the 'Dick on a stick'

Image result for dagwood dog

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

I used to spend my FTB on my kids teeth and educational stuff. If i'd have been given food stamps i couldn't do that.

Or you could have used the money you spent buying food to pay for 'kids teeth and educational stuff' and used the stamps to buy food. Or used it to take a course on not being a moron.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

But a least not the Vodka to put in the Mountain Dew. I don't know what a hot cheeto is but I am guessing it is something with the same nutritional value of our homegrown bogan's favorite fare, the 'Dick on a stick'

Image result for dagwood dog

Regarding bogan's fare, it seems very clear that you would be well versed in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Left Shift said:

Regarding bogan's fare, it seems very clear that you would be well versed in it.

Rapier comeback mate. You are really on your game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

But a least not the Vodka to put in the Mountain Dew. I don't know what a hot cheeto is but I am guessing it is something with the same nutritional value of our homegrown bogan's favorite fare, the 'Dick on a stick'

https://www.delish.com/cooking/a51499/things-you-should-know-before-eating-flamin-hot-cheetos/

Essentially a cheese puff coated with a hot spice mixture.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I think the bigger pity is you don't have legal weed.

because what makes yank pseudo-capitalism fucking great is delivery of munchies to stoned college students.

Yes thank god that it is illegal over here so our college students can't smoke it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

instead you have dumb broads smuggling it into Indonesia to make media shitshows.....

Now now petal that was 15 years ago and you really shouldn’t judge an entire nation on the actions of one citizen. We don’t consider all Americans to be pindicked, moronic snowflakes just because of your behaviour. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Your response is classic paternalism. There will never be a perfect system. Ever. Not if you do nothing at all, not if you try to manage each person. 

The best we can do is get to 90%.

90% means you trust people to make the best decisions they can make.

Or - you go big gov't and send them food directly. My grandmother used to get gov't cheese every month. An extra $8 on her SS check would have been better for all involved. Cheaper for the Feds, more utility for the grandmother.

 

As to kids, if the parents are drug addicts and spend all their money on meth, you take the kids away. Duh.

Isn't that more paternalism?    Wouldn't a more proactive approach be to constrain how the assistance can be consumed?   You're right - and I'm pleased to hear you admit that there is a balance.  That provides an opportunity to analyze factors and determine where that fulcrum truly exists. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2019 at 8:58 AM, Blue Crab said:

Last week you said I was a Socialist. I'm a pragmatist and problem solver. Got better ideas? Let's hear them. 

The poor need to get in the game. There's plenty of work that needs doing but paying rent is pretty basic stuff. 

The green new deal says it's OK to be unwilling to work.  Somebody must provide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The green new deal says it's OK to be unwilling to work.  Somebody must provide.

I think that idea fell by the wayside. But Mr. Yang is for a minimum income. My guess is that the corner bodegas and shops will increase prices to vacuum up any extra dough. Maybe we'll go back to pushcarts of fruit and veggies in the ultra dense black and brown communities. Hopefully, some young folks are doing this rather than selling drugs. 

--------------------------------------------------

Last week a white acquaintance sold his $160 food stamp allotment to his bud for $80 bucks cash. The acquaintance drove directly to the booze store and spent it on Crown Royal. The dude is already living in his car. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

You've reached the stage in life where you don't really give a fuck what anyone says, you just go on what you think they said, haven't you?

It's funny how given the choice between subsidy thats more efficient & provides less economic distortion and subsidy that exerts state power of control, you righties always pick the latter.

That's funny.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That's funny.... 

yes, but what about the part about the lean towards paternalism from the right? (my shorthand of the 2nd half of his comment).  And yes, I know this is not new.  But it's sad from the party of supposed personal & fiscal responsibility and family values.  Or is Rush right, that no one ever really believed those words, it was just a way to get elected?

 

How do you feel about being mislead by your party? 

 

Remember, I was an R until 2004. I think you're going through now what I went through then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unemployment is low and wages are inching up.   My first response was a conservative:   "Why do they need me to donate my taxes to feed them."    It seems the recipients are mostly white people, so its hard to fight a race war on this issue.    They are mostly old people, people on disability and children.   So 2 of the three largest categories are directly caused by current bad policy.  

Lack of health care coverage forces many middle aged people to take disability not because they cannot work, but because they cannot pay for necessary medications when they work.  Add those terminal due to late diagnosis due to our screwed up system, and we have a lot of people on food stamps that might be employed and feeding themselves if we had first world healthcare.

Lack of sensible birth control programs due to the religious right, coupled with programs that subsidize large families by doubling support every time you double the number of kids creates this problem.   Since the mother is by definition poor and limited in her ability to work by child care limitations, the total 'revenue' obtained by the family increase at a greater rate then the number of kids.   We need a tapering system of child support, where each additional kid gets 10% less food then the next oldest sibling.    Instead give free vasectomies and morning after pills to anybody on request instead of trying to shut down anybody associated with the word abortion and subsidizing the unwanted kids.    Increase safe but affordable child care options for working mothers.   I dislike income based freebees, since it just promotes class warfare and resentment.

That just leaves the old people.   The Republican solution is to privatize social security so the investment banks can get even more money from old people, and even more financially foolish old people end up needing food stamps.    We do encourage early death with poor healthcare and subsidized cereal grains used to make cheap highly processed junk food.   The Democrats don't seem to have a solution.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lark said:

Unemployment is low and wages are inching up.   My first response was a conservative:   "Why do they need me to donate my taxes to feed them."    It seems the recipients are mostly white people, so its hard to fight a race war on this issue.    They are mostly old people, people on disability and children.   So 2 of the three largest categories are directly caused by current bad policy.  

Lack of health care coverage forces many middle aged people to take disability not because they cannot work, but because they cannot pay for necessary medications when they work.  Add those terminal due to late diagnosis due to our screwed up system, and we have a lot of people on food stamps that might be employed and feeding themselves if we had first world healthcare.

Lack of sensible birth control programs due to the religious right, coupled with programs that subsidize large families by doubling support every time you double the number of kids creates this problem.   Since the mother is by definition poor and limited in her ability to work by child care limitations, the total 'revenue' obtained by the family increase at a greater rate then the number of kids.   We need a tapering system of child support, where each additional kid gets 10% less food then the next oldest sibling.    Instead give free vasectomies and morning after pills to anybody on request instead of trying to shut down anybody associated with the word abortion and subsidizing the unwanted kids.    Increase safe but affordable child care options for working mothers.   I dislike income based freebees, since it just promotes class warfare and resentment.

That just leaves the old people.   The Republican solution is to privatize social security so the investment banks can get even more money from old people, and even more financially literate people end up needing food stamps.    Encourage early death with poor healthcare and subsidized cereal grains used to make cheap highly processed junk food.   The Democrats don't seem to have a solution.  

 

If you could keep the 13% of your pay and invest it, would you do so and forego SS?  Or would you let the government have it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jzk said:

If you could keep the 13% of your pay and invest it, would you do so and forego SS?  Or would you let the government have it?

The government.   I want some guaranteed income, just in case I am unlucky enough to retire during the reign of another Republican President and face my equivalent of the Bush Recession.   I knew a guy that had to work retail after Lehman Brothers folded and a chunk of his retirement assets disappeared.  Retail is hard to find these days, and its hard for retirees to find work on highway crews, especially if they lack heavy equipment certification.   More importantly, a lot of people are demonstrably poor at saving and investing.   Privatizing social security will just increase the need for food stamps unless we can find forced labor suitable for mobility impaired starving old people with poor vision and reflexes.  

Edited to note a converging opinion from @A guy in the Chesapeake   

1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm sure I could go google studies that support my point, but, my comment is based upon personal observation - I have family members who continue to exhibit the poor decision making and refuse to accept the reality that their priorities have put them in their current state.  I see the same thing w/people in my community, parents and kids in a couple shelters that we try to support, so while not an empirical study, its enough for me to feel comfortable in my pinion.   

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

yes, but what about the part about the lean towards paternalism from the right? (my shorthand of the 2nd half of his comment).  And yes, I know this is not new.  But it's sad from the party of supposed personal & fiscal responsibility and family values.  Or is Rush right, that no one ever really believed those words, it was just a way to get elected?

 

How do you feel about being mislead by your party? 

 

Remember, I was an R until 2004. I think you're going through now what I went through then. 

Your questions are valid, and I'm a little shy on time, but, I'll try to summarize a couple of thoughts: 

There is a lean towards paternalism, and to a certain extent, I think that's appropriate, and with good intent.  For me, the line between OK and Not occurs when the paternalistic requirements become more punitive than practical.  I have no problem compelling SNAP recipients to spend those benefit $$ on food, /vs/ gasoline, cigarettes or alcohol.  Many of the people in the lower socio-economic layer of our society are there because they can't/won't make good decisions for themselves.  This isn't a value judgement - but, an acknowledgement that w/out external guidelines/requirements, the effectiveness of the assistance programs would be negatively impacted by those personal spending decisions.   Like you said earlier - there's a balance point, and I think that one factor that should be considered in establishing that balance is the potential harm caused to innocents ( thinking about kids/elderly ) by poor spending decisions, and what it takes to recover from that harm, /vs/ the harm caused by restricting certain purchasing freedoms.  

I don't feel like I'm being misled - I think that there's a vocal faction in the R party that's taking it in an ineffective, anti-pragmatic direction in an attempt to move the legislative agenda in a direction that they wrongly think will allow them to perpetuate their hold on office.   I have no false idea that the party apparatchik is trying to do what I think is necessary.  At the same time - the legislative focus expressed by the left fringe of the D party is undesirable to me too. 

Ultimately?  I'm sick of the division, the idea that political affiliation is the most important determinant of anything, and want reasonable responsible adults to focus more on doing what's good for the country than in exacting partisan revenge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Got anything to back that up other than your rightwing beliefs?

I'm sure I could go google studies that support my point, but, my comment is based upon personal observation - I have family members who continue to exhibit the poor decision making and refuse to accept the reality that their priorities have put them in their current state.  I see the same thing w/people in my community, parents and kids in a couple shelters that we try to support, so while not an empirical study, its enough for me to feel comfortable in my opinion.   

Do you have anything to refute the validity of my observations other than your overwhelming desire to denigrate everyone who holds an opinion different than yours? 

 

Edited to respond to your edit:  If you're not going to wait until I respond to tell me what your reaction to that response is, I think I'm gonna just sit back and wait for you type out the entire conversation yourself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm sure I could go google studies that support my point, but, my comment is based upon personal observation - I have family members who continue to exhibit the poor decision making and refuse to accept the reality that their priorities have put them in their current state.  I see the same thing w/people in my community, parents and kids in a couple shelters that we try to support, so while not an empirical study, its enough for me to feel comfortable in my opinion.   

Do you have anything to refute the validity of my observations other than your overwhelming desire to denigrate everyone who holds an opinion different than yours? 

Just an observation, and not trying to be snarky, but what you just said is that personal responsibility is great, unless you're poor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

I think that idea fell by the wayside. But Mr. Yang is for a minimum income. My guess is that the corner bodegas and shops will increase prices to vacuum up any extra dough. Maybe we'll go back to pushcarts of fruit and veggies in the ultra dense black and brown communities. Hopefully, some young folks are doing this rather than selling drugs. 

--------------------------------------------------

Last week a white acquaintance sold his $160 food stamp allotment to his bud for $80 bucks cash. The acquaintance drove directly to the booze store and spent it on Crown Royal. The dude is already living in his car. 

That's the problem.  EBT cards are fungible.  When the RW whackos find someone buying lobster with an EBT card it usually isn't the person it was issued to but someone who provided other goods that weren't eligible.  We do have the technology to add pictures to the card but, I would guess that would be considered some sort of civil rights violation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I go clean the boat, this is an occasion I partially agree with @A guy in the Chesapeake

I also see stupid decisions made by many poor.   I see self perpetuated poverty traps.   I see similar stupid decisions made by rich people, but they escape consequences thanks to lawyers, deep pockets, teams of handlers and family help.    I see poor people with talent through hard work make wise and pragmatic decisions, but a single bit of bad luck drags them right back into the poverty trap just as they are about to emerge.    Opportunity is limited, and requires both fortune and merit.   The easiest way to prosper is to be born rich with rich family.    This works even better then winning the lottery, which shows the network of privilege supporting privilege is even more important then mere wealth.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Just an observation, and not trying to be snarky, but what you just said is that personal responsibility is great, unless you're poor.

To be clear - being poor isn't the indication of personal irresponsibility.   You'll remember, I think, my sharing that we were poor when I was a kid - we lived in public housing, we got free lunches and food stamps after my folks split up and my Mom was trying to make it w/3 kids and an insufficient income.   Her irresponsibility ( other than getting pregnant with me way too young) didn't cause her circumstances.   My sister-in-law?   My youngest sister?  In both cases their behavior and priorities absolutely ARE responsible for their economic plight, and their demonstrated lack of personal responsibility, and the subsequent need to rely on public assistance warrant intrusion into their personal decision making.   If that intrusion didn't happen?  Then their kids would be in a lot worse shape than they currently are.  Right now, at least they're all fed, and one set of kids is going to school.  We try to help - but, neither of 'em want to hear anything that the other siblings have to say. The authority of paternalistic requirements from the agencies providing that assistance is something that they can't ignore. 

To the point that you're responsible for your own outcomes?  You're right. When your circumstances demonstrate that your lack of personal responsibility caused your dependence?  Then its appropriate for certain personal decisions to be constrained.    I hope I've articulated the position clearly enough for it to be understood, and I didn't take your comment as snark at all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

That's the problem.  EBT cards are fungible.  When the RW whackos find someone buying lobster with an EBT card it usually isn't the person it was issued to but someone who provided other goods that weren't eligible.  We do have the technology to add pictures to the card but, I would guess that would be considered some sort of civil rights violation.

If the EBT recipient wants to splurge and buy lobster?   Why is that anyone else's business, UNLESS that person then comes back in 2 weeks asking for more $$ because they splurged and have no $$ left to get thru the rest of the month.  If it's something that's within the program intent? What they buy w/the benefits oughta be left to them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

If the EBT recipient wants to splurge and buy lobster?   Why is that anyone else's business, UNLESS that person then comes back in 2 weeks asking for more $$ because they splurged and have no $$ left to get thru the rest of the month.  If it's something that's within the program intent? What they buy w/the benefits oughta be left to them. 

The issue as cited and to which I responded was the use of EBT cards by others as a financial transaction

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saorsa said:

The issue as cited and to which I responded was the use of EBT cards by others as a financial transaction

 

if I misunderstood the intent of your comment - apologies.   I *do* know that there are people who sell their EBT benefits, usually for $.50 on the $1.00.   

While the idea of purely cash disbursements of benefit $$ would almost certainly mitigate that, moving to that delivery medium would also require an acceptance that once a benefit had been exhausted, that the recipient was solely responsible for that outcome.   If we can do that?  I'd support Flash's premise, and think that the short-term hardship would probably do more to educate and inform future decisions than any benefit consumption constraint ever could. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Poor person is showing hustle and initiative and it's a problem to the right-wingers. Shows, again, the desire is for control and the optics of control.

Nobody would question someone buying baby formula; it's a fungible good with one of the bigger non-Drug black market items around in the US and easy to resell. Hell, almost all food is fungible. The issue appears not to be abuse just the efficiency of the abuse.

Not hustle and initiative - poor prioritization and decision making - giving away the food budget for half the benefit so they can instead buy things other than food.  The issue is both the abuse, and the inefficiency of the conversion, and that harm that both cause the intended beneficiary.  The perpetuation of those poor practices contribute to keeping the recipients in the poverty cycle.  I doubt you'll never accept this, but, most of the people on the right don't want to exert control for the purpose of exerting control, the intent is to instead help people break the poor-decision cycle and give folks a path to climb up and out.   I wish I could shake my family members by the shoulders and smack 'em in the head to get 'em to wise up - but, they refuse to listen to anything that doesn't directly impact what they get in benefit $$.   SO - if that's the avenue by which education and expectations can be delivered, I don't think it's wrong to use it to do so. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

That's the problem.  EBT cards are fungible.  When the RW whackos find someone buying lobster with an EBT card it usually isn't the person it was issued to but someone who provided other goods that weren't eligible.  We do have the technology to add pictures to the card but, I would guess that would be considered some sort of civil rights violation.

just more paternalistic crapola.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

If the EBT recipient wants to splurge and buy lobster?   Why is that anyone else's business, UNLESS that person then comes back in 2 weeks asking for more $$ because they splurged and have no $$ left to get thru the rest of the month.  If it's something that's within the program intent? What they buy w/the benefits oughta be left to them. 

agree 100%

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Really depends on what the money was spent on, no? I don't know what it was spent on so I can't comment on the rest of it which just sounds like the usually poor-shaming rightwing bullshit that's more about the rightwinger feeling superior for their good decisions.

Well - since it seems obvious that you're sticking your head in the sand and are unwilling to go see for yourself how the $$ are spent in those situations, I'll leave you to your hateful projections. 

Edited to add:  Of course, that's completely ignoring the problem that when an ECT recipient DOES sell their benefits for cash, that they lose 50% of the purchasing power that the benefit $$ should have provided. Of course, that fact is more RW bullshit based in their desire to repress, isn't it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

The discount on converting food (what it was intended to provide) into cash is 50%.

if you've got an economic paper on the market structure of EBT resale and consumer uses for the cash, I'm eyes, not interested in ancedotes.

What's the point in asking this?  It seems that you accept the observations that indicate that this is the discount rate.   Are you suggesting that accepting that discount rate doesn't impact the effectiveness of the SNAP program, and doesn't adversely impact the beneficiary's fiscal position? That it shouldn't be illegal?  Ya know what, answer this instead - why is this tangent worth more discussion?  It detracts from the main point. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites