Page 12 of 55 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 548

Thread: Food-stamp use doubles

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Food-stamp use doubles

    Quote Originally Posted by WWGWD View Post
    Please don't patronize me. There is no reason in the world for you to call me sweetheart other then to be demeaning is some capacity. It doesn't make what your saying true. The stereotypes have been around for decades. Just because you repeat something enough doesn't make it true. It makes it a common miss perception.
    Awwww. *pinches your cheeks*

    Now, this is an actual statement with substance! I actually love this idea and have advocated it myself. However, the trouble I run across in practicality is the cost. Can you implement a system like that, with the same allocation of funds the current system has? The argument you into is, no and we shouldn't anyway, because it's a waste of tax payer money. How logistically, do you restructure funding, and get the people who truly believe the poor are just lazy on board with that kind of a system?

    The problem I see, is when the argument shifts to the merits of the recipients, you have a problem. Because the narrative from the right promotes the stereotype about poverty that deems them worthless and lazy, it makes it difficult to discuss. That type of narrative drives an invalid perception of the poor, that makes people think they aren't worth helping. The kinds of stereotypes you yourself promoted here. How does a national discussion about that kind of reform, if one side doesn't acknowledge it's worth reforming?
    There's probably no way that you can crunch hypothetical numbers to know for sure, but I can't possibly think that it'd be more expensive to have large structures that house many people and use less in utilities than to give people money to use at their own discretion, or subsidizing "section 8" places. I mean, let's face it - welfare shouldn't get you your own place. You don't earn that. If you want to have your own place, you stay at a shelter I described and save up money in order to put yourself in your own space.

    Why do you think Mexicans fit 20 people in a 2 bedroom apartment? Cost. There is cost minimization in people sharing common space as opposed to giving them each their own.

    If you give people the absolute minimum necessary to function but give them discretionary funds used solely for employment-seeking actions (or maybe even have shelters with available vehicles that can be used as limited transports), you can get people to work toward self-sufficiency. I have no problem meeting anyone halfway who really tries to better his or her situation.

  2. #112
    Professor
    Dirt Racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    02-19-16 @ 10:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,747

    Re: Food-stamp use doubles

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    If you want to fix SNAP you need to make it more like WIC. The more you limit the food to only items with nutritional value the less beneficial it will be to those people who don't need it, while still allowing those who do need it to be able to get the benefit. Oh, and are people in this thread suggesting people commute from NY to washington to pick apples? I am not sure what they pay apple pickers in washington, but I am pretty sure it would not even cover gas for one way. It would make more sense for NY people to pick apples in NY orchards, but if you are going to make an absurd argument i guess it works. Oh, and SNAP is only 200 dollars of edible items a month max. It is not really lobster and filet mignon for recipients. The areas you really want to hit if you are going after wasteful social assistance are TANF and social security disability. Also, using people who receive food stamps for doing jobs that could employ someone at minimum wage just eliminates jobs. it is a terrible idea that would destroy many more lives because people would be happy to pay a person 200 dollars a month in food rather than a real wage with some benefits.

    Do you guys even think of the end product of your solutions? have you even educated yourself on what you are actually talking about?
    This is the first time I have ever agreed with part of your posts. You are spot on on the WIC, SNAP comparison. If they would model SNAP after WIC you would see less folks on it and less complaints about it.

    I mentioned people having to work doing something to receive benefits. I understand it is not feasible for someone to commute long distance to pick apples, that was merely an example of the kind of work people believe they are above. There are plenty of things an able bodied person could do to at least earn some of what they are receiving.

    I have seen with my own eyes recipients get Lobster, Snack Cakes, Pop, Etc with these cards. They send their kids down to the corner market to get candy. So it does happen. How big is that issue I am not sure, but I do know it happens.

  3. #113
    Advisor WWGWD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    07-01-13 @ 11:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    425

    Re: Food-stamp use doubles

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Awwww. *pinches your cheeks*
    Seriously, what is the point? If you know it bothers someone, what other reason is there to say stuff like that, then to get under someone's skin? Is it really integral to making your your point? Can't you just leave it alone, and have a discussion?

    There's probably no way that you can crunch hypothetical numbers to know for sure, but I can't possibly think that it'd be more expensive to have large structures that house many people and use less in utilities than to give people money to use at their own discretion, or subsidizing "section 8" places. I mean, let's face it - welfare shouldn't get you your own place. You don't earn that. If you want to have your own place, you stay at a shelter I described and save up money in order to put yourself in your own space.

    Why do you think Mexicans fit 20 people in a 2 bedroom apartment? Cost. There is cost minimization in people sharing common space as opposed to giving them each their own.

    If you give people the absolute minimum necessary to function but give them discretionary funds used solely for employment-seeking actions (or maybe even have shelters with available vehicles that can be used as limited transports), you can get people to work toward self-sufficiency. I have no problem meeting anyone halfway who really tries to better his or her situation.
    Fair enough. However, you still lack the argument on how to present a system like that to a constituency that believes impoverished people are drains on society?

    I would still think you at least estimate the cost a similar system, using at the very least the prison system as a model (for basic need purposes alone). Where, and how many of these structures do you build? If some has to move across town from their low wage job to live in your shelters, is government then required to subsidize transportation? How about security? If you are going to house people in that close of quarters, would the government then be providing security? If so, what kind of security would that be?

    Whatever choice you make on how to address helping people who will use it, it will always require a pretty heavy dose of direct, federal involvement. That is a hard sell in a climate full of pundits who scream about the federal government being idiotic and ineffectual at anything. How do you sell this idea that even more direct government involvement is the wiser choice or the more fiscally responsible?
    "....The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty...." -Jefferson 1787

  4. #114
    Professor
    madman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    So. California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,936

    Re: Food-stamp use doubles

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    What is a decent wage? If you want unskilled labor to be paid more than the current market supports, you'll simply end up sending more jobs overseas...

    I completely disagree!

  5. #115
    Professor
    madman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    So. California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,936

    Re: Food-stamp use doubles

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    I'd love to see your definition of a "decent wage".
    I dont have that info. I have people representing me to work that out.

  6. #116
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: Food-stamp use doubles

    Quote Originally Posted by madman View Post
    I completely disagree!
    And I find your responses useless...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  7. #117
    Professor
    madman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    So. California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,936

    Re: Food-stamp use doubles

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    And I find your responses useless...
    And you're entitled to your useless opinion.

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Food-stamp use doubles

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Awwww. *pinches your cheeks*



    There's probably no way that you can crunch hypothetical numbers to know for sure, but I can't possibly think that it'd be more expensive to have large structures that house many people and use less in utilities than to give people money to use at their own discretion, or subsidizing "section 8" places. I mean, let's face it - welfare shouldn't get you your own place. You don't earn that. If you want to have your own place, you stay at a shelter I described and save up money in order to put yourself in your own space.

    Why do you think Mexicans fit 20 people in a 2 bedroom apartment? Cost. There is cost minimization in people sharing common space as opposed to giving them each their own.

    If you give people the absolute minimum necessary to function but give them discretionary funds used solely for employment-seeking actions (or maybe even have shelters with available vehicles that can be used as limited transports), you can get people to work toward self-sufficiency. I have no problem meeting anyone halfway who really tries to better his or her situation.
    To a progressive everything you said translates into "you hate poor people" oh and you're a "racist."

    I don't believe progressives have any desire to have a logical and meaningful debate about poverty...

    What do you expect out of a bunch of authoritarians?

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Food-stamp use doubles

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirt Racer View Post
    This is the first time I have ever agreed with part of your posts. You are spot on on the WIC, SNAP comparison. If they would model SNAP after WIC you would see less folks on it and less complaints about it.

    I mentioned people having to work doing something to receive benefits. I understand it is not feasible for someone to commute long distance to pick apples, that was merely an example of the kind of work people believe they are above. There are plenty of things an able bodied person could do to at least earn some of what they are receiving.

    I have seen with my own eyes recipients get Lobster, Snack Cakes, Pop, Etc with these cards. They send their kids down to the corner market to get candy. So it does happen. How big is that issue I am not sure, but I do know it happens.
    It is not actually an issue for people who need the card to eat. You are capable of purchasing a lot of things that are excpensive and have little to no nutritional value, or are a luxury food which wastes your small benefit. Food benefits are maxed at 200 dollars a person, and the more people in a house on the program the more the benefits are cut. 200 dollars a month seems like a lot to a person who doesn't pay attention to their food budget, but it doesn't go a very long way for a single person. It is 50 dollars a week or 7 dollars a day. A bag of doritoes would be half of your food for the day. A candy bar is 1.50-2.00 you could get 4 of them per day and eat nothing else. this is why i think those sorts of food should be cut from the program since we can easily do it now. It will never happen, and that is not because of the poor people. It won't happen because of companies like frito lays, general foods, and big business that makes a lot of money off of SNAP purchases by people who are spending extra on food because they have the money to. Those are the people who get the benefit of some person who isn't poor getting the extra money from SNAP. real poor people are already spending their money on food they need to survive, and brand names are just extra expense they cannot spend money on. Even the fast food industry is trying to get in on the action and allow SNAP benefits to be allowed for purchases at places like McDonalds because they know it will boost their business despite the reality you could only eat one meal a day if you bought fast food. Still, in reality a cut to SNAP without actually getting people employed so they get money will cause job losses and effectively hurt our farming, distribution, and food sales industries.

    This is why i find the mindless attacks on the SNAP system to be really stupid. It is a system that keeps our supermarket and farming economies running while not giving out cash benefits. It needs some tweaking, but otherwise it is not terrible, and it certainly is not something you can sit on your ass and live off of in luxury. The problems with it are clearly promoted by greedy corporate concerns, and that is why it remains problematic today. however, it is much easier to blame poor people than the corporate food giants stuffing money into the hands of politicians on both sides to keep SNAp money coming in. No one is avoiding work because they get 200 dollars a month in food. if they are avoiding work it is probably because their parents support them, or they are doing something under the table. We can do things to knock those people off of the system while allowing those who need it to remain on it.

  10. #120
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Food-stamp use doubles

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    It is not actually an issue for people who need the card to eat. You are capable of purchasing a lot of things that are excpensive and have little to no nutritional value, or are a luxury food which wastes your small benefit. Food benefits are maxed at 200 dollars a person, and the more people in a house on the program the more the benefits are cut. 200 dollars a month seems like a lot to a person who doesn't pay attention to their food budget, but it doesn't go a very long way for a single person. It is 50 dollars a week or 7 dollars a day. A bag of doritoes would be half of your food for the day. A candy bar is 1.50-2.00 you could get 4 of them per day and eat nothing else. this is why i think those sorts of food should be cut from the program since we can easily do it now. It will never happen, and that is not because of the poor people. It won't happen because of companies like frito lays, general foods, and big business that makes a lot of money off of SNAP purchases by people who are spending extra on food because they have the money to. Those are the people who get the benefit of some person who isn't poor getting the extra money from SNAP. real poor people are already spending their money on food they need to survive, and brand names are just extra expense they cannot spend money on. Even the fast food industry is trying to get in on the action and allow SNAP benefits to be allowed for purchases at places like McDonalds because they know it will boost their business despite the reality you could only eat one meal a day if you bought fast food. Still, in reality a cut to SNAP without actually getting people employed so they get money will cause job losses and effectively hurt our farming, distribution, and food sales industries.

    This is why i find the mindless attacks on the SNAP system to be really stupid. It is a system that keeps our supermarket and farming economies running while not giving out cash benefits. It needs some tweaking, but otherwise it is not terrible, and it certainly is not something you can sit on your ass and live off of in luxury. The problems with it are clearly promoted by greedy corporate concerns, and that is why it remains problematic today. however, it is much easier to blame poor people than the corporate food giants stuffing money into the hands of politicians on both sides to keep SNAp money coming in. No one is avoiding work because they get 200 dollars a month in food. if they are avoiding work it is probably because their parents support them, or they are doing something under the table. We can do things to knock those people off of the system while allowing those who need it to remain on it.
    No.... In Illinois they get paid per-kid.. $1,200 is the max per week (of course they get "their" taxpayer welfare monthly.)

Page 12 of 55 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •