• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Food-stamp use doubles

While I agree that increased food stamp recipients is a bad thing, I really don't see why this is a death knell for the US.

Among other things:

• NYC has a balanced budget -- despite the increase in food stamp spending. In fact, NYC's budget is required by law to balance, and surpluses are held to cover for future deficits. Does YOUR city or state do that? (Answer: Almost certainly not. Few cities or states require balanced budgets.)


• New York State pays more in federal tax revenues than it receives in services. Does YOUR state do that? (Answer: 50% of states pay more than they receive. Many so-called "red" states like KY, VA, AL, LA, AZ etc receive significantly more funding than they pay back in taxes.)


• Public assistance and SSI have been flat in NYC for years:

201303_stamps1.jpg



• The benefits aren't that generous. 1 person gets $200 a month, or $50 a week, or $6 a day, or $2 per meal. Helpful as a supplement, difficult if that's all you've got. Ever try to live off of $6 a day? We're talking beans and rice, not steak and lobster.

And food can cost 10-20% more in NYC than in many other cities. So go on, take the Food Stamp Challenge! See if you can live off of a food budget of $180 a week. Maybe we can make a fad diet out of it, 'cause you will almost certainly lose some weight. :mrgreen:


• The cutoff for food stamps in NYC is (iirc) around $14,000/year. Due to the cost of living, if you live in Brooklyn, that's the equivalent of $8,000/yr in Dallas or Kansas City, or $9,500 in Chicago.


• Bloomberg is a social moderate and an environmentalist, but a fiscal conservative.

In fact, one of the ways NYC saves a lot of money is by focusing on the kinds of environmental issues which reduce the city's energy costs.


So again, while I do see increases in food stamps as a bad thing, and hope it will drop back to normal rates as the economy picks up, it sounds an awful lot like the heathens of NYC are still keeping their budget much more in line than most other cities, that other forms of assistance haven't increased anywhere near as much, and the benefits are not especially generous.

I.e. unless the mere mention of "food stamps" makes you break out in hives, I don't see why this is anything more than an indicator that NYC and the US are still dealing with the effects of the recession.

And if this s the case, then I would have no real concerns.
 
What a failure progressive policy is....



Just remember who to blame when this all collapses....

I'm surprised. You know, Super Big Gulps aren't all that expensive and I hear they're filling and fatten you up so if there is a problem with lack of nourishment in NYC, let's give them all a free frequent customer card at 7-11 and let the good times roll.
 
What a failure progressive policy is....



Just remember who to blame when this all collapses....

The reason for the food stamps is because of the DEEP recession that began under President Bush and gradually is getting better under President Obama.



Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


1-Month Net Change
Series Id: CES0000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total nonfarm
Industry: Total nonfarm
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS


Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2003 89 -158 -215 -51 -10 -3 20 -44 105 197 13 119
2004 159 43 333 247 306 78 37 125 155 343 65 128
2005 130 240 135 362 168 246 372 192 65 81 335 158
2006 274 316 280 181 21 80 210 179 159 -3 205 169
2007 234 90 186 76 141 80 -35 -24 77 86 111 93
2008 14 -85 -79 -215 -186 -169 -216 -270 -459 -472 -775 -705
2009 -794 -695 -830 -704 -352 -472 -351 -210 -233 -170 -21 -220
2010 -13 -40 154 229 521 -130 -86 -37 -43 228 144 95
2011 69 196 205 304 115 209 78 132 225 166 174 230
2012 311 271 205 112 125 87 153 165 138 160 247 219
2013 119(P) 236(P)
P : preliminary
 
Yep. It all looks so good and fair on paper, yet who would be a construction worker, exposed to hard work outside when the same "wages" are offered for a nice safe, comfortable McJob or Walmart greeter position?
Apparently, quite a few people.

Some social policies do increase unemployment; e.g. worker protections in France have almost certainly increased unemployment, especially for the youth (since an employer who hires a 25 year old could be stuck with him for a decade or more).

Others, however, show little sign of spelling the doom of a nation. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Finland, the Netherlands all have flatter income distribution than the US, but this has not caused their economies collapse.

I would agree that making wages completely flat would require highly inefficient policies. However, old-school socialists of that stripe are pretty rare these days -- even in NYC.
 
But the same wages are not. Minimum wage is still well below those professions. But let me ask you this: how do you value labor? In the 80's, I make $3.50 an hour (and was only paid for 10 of every 24 hours I worked) as a paramedic. At the time, the person hold the stop sign at the construction job made $10 an hour. If you needed emergency care, how much would I be worth?

Nice chat, but that ignores the point that I made. If the minimum wage worker is given $300/month in tax free food stamps then they get $1200/month in paychecks plus free food for $1500/month total pay, or effectively a 25% "pay raise", over the minimum wage worker that does not qualify for those food stamps.
 
Nice chat, but that ignores the point that I made. If the minimum wage worker is given $300/month in tax free food stamps then they get $1200/month in paychecks plus free food for $1500/month total pay, or effectively a 25% "pay raise", over the minimum wage worker that does not qualify for those food stamps.

That has to do with qualifications. But $1500 a month is hardly matching the professions you listed. Which is what I responded too. No one is getting rich on minimum wage.
 
Kind of reminds of how Government's involvement in healthcare is making costs skyrocket so fast more and more people depend on the government, increasing costs more to the point that Universal Health Care is inevitable... because back when doctors made cheap house calls wasn't fair enough.



**** your stupid drug war, prohibition causes more problems and solves nothing.

I have meet someone who was willing to sell her foodstamps for drugs and that woman had children. Seorously why is it in low income household areas their is always the person with a cadalic or a giant shiny pick up truck that could destroy a normal size pick up truck. This is not a war on drugs just people who cant aford food but could aford drugs.
 
Last edited:
Yep. It all looks so good and fair on paper, yet who would be a construction worker, exposed to hard work outside when the same "wages" are offered for a nice safe, comfortable McJob or Walmart greeter position? Doctor = McWorker = lawyer = carpenter = truck driver = waiter teacher = chef = farmer = CEO; they all get that same gov't defined "living wage" and will accept and like it because it is "fair".

That's not how the concept of a living wage works.
 
I couldn't agree more. I believe in order to receive assistance they should be required to do some type of community service. Pick up trash, Plant tree's, work at an apple orchard. Give them something to do beisides sit around and wait for a check. This would likely curb some of the criminal activities we have.

Well it depends on why their on asstance my step sister's father is blind and on assitance
 
Walmart teaches its employees how to apply for food stamps.
 
Since the alternative to a living wage is a dying
wage, we can see immediately where the right comes from on this. In a crashed economy where there are no jobs, or at least far fewer jobs than workers, then without welfare those having no work, starve.

Lol....demagogy

The alternative to a living wage is freedom and a society not mired in mediocrite.
 
Well it depends on why their on asstance my step sister's father is blind and on assitance

I am certainly not speaking of someone in your Step Sister's fathers condition. I have absolutely no issue with people who have a genuine handicap receiving assistance. I have an Aunt that is mentally handicapped and receives assistance.

In fact I feel these are the only reasons people should get permanent assistance. Those that fall on hard times should only be eligible for short term assistance. These programs are being abused by the dregs of society and make it difficult for those who really need it to receive or survive off of it.
 
I am certainly not speaking of someone in your Step Sister's fathers condition. I have absolutely no issue with people who have a genuine handicap receiving assistance. I have an Aunt that is mentally handicapped and receives assistance.

In fact I feel these are the only reasons people should get permanent assistance. Those that fall on hard times should only be eligible for short term assistance. These programs are being abused by the dregs of society and make it difficult for those who really need it to receive or survive off of it.

Thanks for clarifaction
 
Thanks for clarifaction

No Problem. What is a shame is that in the past the churches or other groups would take up the cause and help these people. Instead we have now expanded the governments role as care taker. Once certain people figured this system out they have completely consumed it.
 
I am certainly not speaking of someone in your Step Sister's fathers condition. I have absolutely no issue with people who have a genuine handicap receiving assistance. I have an Aunt that is mentally handicapped and receives assistance.

In fact I feel these are the only reasons people should get permanent assistance. Those that fall on hard times should only be eligible for short term assistance. These programs are being abused by the dregs of society and make it difficult for those who really need it to receive or survive off of it.

Most people on food stamps get off after one year. (Fox Ignores Food Stamp Facts To Push "Dependency" Myth | Research | Media Matters for America)
 
NYC should outlaw food stamps. What good do they do?

You could make 50 grand a year working in NYC and be lucky to not require a roommate or 3 in a studio apartment just to scrape by.

Dunno how in the bloody hell you can make it on stamps.
 
That has to do with qualifications. But $1500 a month is hardly matching the professions you listed. Which is what I responded too. No one is getting rich on minimum wage.

Again you missed the point. Since a minimum (or low) wage worker need not actually improve their education or productivity to earn more, as now they simply "qualify" for more by adding dependents, that does not encourage them to do so. What it does encourage, however, is simply voting for folks promising to keep that little reward for failure in place or, better yet, to increase it.
 
That's not how the concept of a living wage works.

It certainly does under our current public assistance system based on actual income, cost of living and number of dependents. It allows for two people working the exact same job to get different effective incomes for the same labor.
 
Again you missed the point. Since a minimum (or low) wage worker need not actually improve their education or productivity to earn more, as now they simply "qualify" for more by adding dependents, that does not encourage them to do so. What it does encourage, however, is simply voting for folks promising to keep that little reward for failure in place or, better yet, to increase it.

That is simply not true. No one is going to successfully raise a family on those wages. And history shows when there was no government help, poor people still existed, suffered, and in some times, their numbers were rather large. So, poverty did not motivate enough or assure everyone was successful. No one successful person would trade places with someone as you describe. I don't really accept your premise. However, I wold love to see the fair, proper and verifiable studies I spoke of earlier.
 
It sustained Obama's first term and won him a second. 94% of congress critters won re-election in 2012. It is sustainable until the voters say otherwise. I agree that things will be very, very out of control when "austerity day" finally comes, yet until then, it is not a problem politically. The gov't gets bigger and the rich get richer, when (not if) the deal goes bad then the rich still have many options that the rest of us lack.

Yes yes everyone votes for handouts except you. You vote on principles and integrity and whatever.
 
That has to do with qualifications. But $1500 a month is hardly matching the professions you listed. Which is what I responded too. No one is getting rich on minimum wage.

No one except perhaps for the people who hire minimum wage workers then expect the rest of us to subsidize their employees.
 
Back
Top Bottom