• 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

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The number of New York City residents receiving food stamps more than doubled over the past decade under Mayor Bloomberg, according to data released yesterday.Now, 1.8 million receive food stamps, a jump from 800,000 in 2002, the Independent Budget Office data show.
IBO spokesman Doug Turetsky cited more aggressive outreach to enroll eligible recipients by the Bloomberg administration, in comparison to his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani.
The cost of the federally funded food-stamp program in the city skyrocketed to $3.4 billion from $1.28 billion over the past decade.

New York City food-stamp recipients double under Mayor Bloomberg - NYPOST.com

What a failure progressive policy is....

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activistsRichard Cloward (1926–2001) and Frances Fox Piven (b. 1932) that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".

Cloward

Just remember who to blame when this all collapses....
 
What a failure progressive policy is....



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

Is a policy a failure if it keeps you in political power and is "paid for" with money borrowed in the names of others? Income redistribution is perfect (politically) since you use other people's money to buy your votes. As long as enough morons believe that they can get "free" stuff by forcing others to pay their "fair share" then this is unstopable.
 
Is a policy a failure if it keeps you in political power and is "paid for" with money borrowed in the names of others? Income redistribution is perfect (politically) since you use other people's money to buy your votes. As long as enough morons believe that they can get "free" stuff by forcing others to pay their "fair share" then this is unstopable.

Unfortunately it is a prescription for collapse in the long run.
 
Unfortunately it is a prescription for collapse in the long run.

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.
 
Make passing a drug test a requirment for food stamps garentee you those numbers will drop
 
What a failure progressive policy is....

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

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.

Make passing a drug test a requirment for food stamps garentee you those numbers will drop

**** your stupid drug war, prohibition causes more problems and solves nothing.
 
Meanwhile, growers have trouble finding enough workers to harvest the food to be given away to food stamp recipients:

example:

A late apple harvest and a shortage of apple pickers has added short-term stress to the final weeks of the Washington apple harvest and added to long-term worries about labor availability for Northwest tree fruit growers.

I've seen apples in the stores selling for over $2 a pound.

People who go out and work, even if they're doing field work, should have more than people who don't.

That's not how it is, but how it should be.
 
Meanwhile, growers have trouble finding enough workers to harvest the food to be given away to food stamp recipients:

example:





I've seen apples in the stores selling for over $2 a pound.

People who go out and work, even if they're doing field work, should have more than people who don't.

That's not how it is, but how it should be.

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.
 
Make passing a drug test a requirment for food stamps garentee you those numbers will drop

Make taxation a requirement for gov't spending and I will guarantee that ALL gov't spending will drop. ;)
 
Make taxation a requirement for gov't spending and I will guarantee that ALL gov't spending will drop. ;)

You Nailed It"" with that one sentence' :)
 
I'm part of the solution. While many of my friends use foodstamps, I've decided not to. I figure that it would only go towards beer and cigs for my friends. After all, I'm not starving or lacking a blanket at night. I know that subsidizing my budget would only provide luxuries.

But if you guys piss me off, Ima take 'em and spend it on hookers and booze!
 
Just remember who to blame when this all collapses....


You all have been saying that for over 5 years now. As much as you would love to see the US collapse, it's not going to happen at all.
 
The question is no how many or how few are taking food stamps or any ther welfare, but how real the need is. And shouldn't someone o a fair, verifiable, proper study on how much is really fraud or abuse? Wouldn't that be more productive?
 
The question is no how many or how few are taking food stamps or any ther welfare, but how real the need is. And shouldn't someone o a fair, verifiable, proper study on how much is really fraud or abuse? Wouldn't that be more productive?

The entire concept is whacked, trying to create a "living wage" by gov't fiat. You must expect non-disabled people to live on their income, not automagically expand their income, via gov't forced income redistribution schemes, to accomodate their "needs". Two citizens, working side by side at the same job, should not have their "fair compensation", for that same labor, be gov't determined by their chosen "cost of living", or the number of dependents that they choose to share it with. From each according to their ability (to pay taxes), to each according to their need (for free stuff) - is an insane public policy.
 
The question is no how many or how few are taking food stamps or any ther welfare, but how real the need is. And shouldn't someone o a fair, verifiable, proper study on how much is really fraud or abuse? Wouldn't that be more productive?
I tend to agree with this, if I understand you correctly. I believe most of the expansion of the program isn't so much a larger need, but rather an expansion of how we define "need".
 
The entire concept is whacked, trying to create a "living wage" by gov't fiat. You must expect non-disabled people to live on their income, not automagically expand their income, via gov't forced income redistribution schemes, to accomodate their "needs". Two citizens, working side by side at the same job, should not have their "fair compensation", for that same labor, be gov't determined by their chosen "cost of living", or the number of dependents that they choose to share it with. From each according to their ability (to pay taxes), to each according to their need (for free stuff) - is an insane public policy.

I think you make a couple of assumptions that are not quite true. Having ability isn't equal to success, even where there is high effort. Where there s no concept if fairness, there is a certainty of things being unfair. There are reasons, real and valid reasons why unions and welfare developed. Left to their own devices business didn't in fact abuse, regardless of ability.

That said, it s possible to go too far the other way. I do believe in balance. The question is how do we measure that?
 
I tend to agree with this, if I understand you correctly. I believe most of the expansion of the program isn't so much a larger need, but rather an expansion of how we define "need".

That may be true, and if so, that should be easy to show. So I think we do agree.
 
The entire concept is whacked, trying to create a "living wage" by gov't fiat. You must expect non-disabled people to live on their income, not automagically expand their income, via gov't forced income redistribution schemes, to accomodate their "needs". Two citizens, working side by side at the same job, should not have their "fair compensation", for that same labor, be gov't determined by their chosen "cost of living", or the number of dependents that they choose to share it with. From each according to their ability (to pay taxes), to each according to their need (for free stuff) - is an insane public policy.


Exactly. As I showed in another thread discussing social democracies, the Scandinavian model of setting a "living" wage has only led to a cost of living in those countries up to 70% higher than the US.

Give everyone a million dollars and bread would cost a grand. Progress!
 
What a failure progressive policy is....



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


That's nothing compared to the increases in income among the top 1% - I won't call them earners because many of them don't work.

Obama and the Tea Party congress has been very good to the wealthy.
 
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.
 
Exactly. As I showed in another thread discussing social democracies, the Scandinavian model of setting a "living" wage has only led to a cost of living in those countries up to 70% higher than the US.

Give everyone a million dollars and bread would cost a grand. Progress!

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".
 
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?
 
I have read this thread through, and I'm confused. Not about the opinions and ideas expressed, that all makes sense, but more why the bigger picture doesn't seem to be a factor. The increase in the recipients is over a decade. A decade ago, or economy was in a TOTALLY different place. Of course more people are on food stamps, when you look at what has happened to the middle class. The economy crashed, millions of jobs were lost and an equal number lost their savings. The housing market crashed, and millions of people went into forclosure and eventually lost their homes. Of course there is going to be an exponential increase in the number of people seeking assistance.

How that situation gets rectified, and dealt with is one thing. But deciding the policy of foodstamps itself is to blame, seems ludacris to me without taking into account any of the extenuating circumstances. Why not focus less on changing all of the mechanics of the program, and focus a little more attention on the root problem causing so many new people to apply for governement assistance?
 
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".

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?
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom