• 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!

The iPhone and Foodstamps.

Posting one racist picture and then posting a picture with other races involved doesn't make the first image suddenly not racist.

Posting a picture with people of a certain demographic group isn't automatically racists. I see pics of all types of people and I don't automatically think "racism".

Oh, and by the way, the allocation of welfare is disproportionate because I don't get as much of it as some other people do (thats a joke).

Personally I think that means testing should be illegal. I mean if something (foodstamps, medical care, free day care, housing, money) is so important that we give it to those who don't make much money, then quite honestly we should give it to everyone. I mean fair is fair, if one person gets free birth control, or food, or whatever from our government, then everyone should get the exact same benefit.
 
I live in Michigan, where they use the Bridge Card, which is basically a debit card, for food assistance. The other day I drove past a liquor store that said Bridge Cards Accepted outside. I kind of have a problem with that.
 
I didn't say abuse was ok. I said we shouldn't randomly audit them for this reason. Stop making things up.

Also, it doesn't matter what other pictures you could find. Posting one racist picture and then posting a picture with other races involved doesn't make the first image suddenly not racist.

We shouldn't randomly audit people for this reason because you have no idea why or how that woman has an iphone. Older iphones are cheap or even free with a cell phone plan. Maybe she used to make $50k a year and bought the phone before she lost her job during the recession. Maybe it was a gift from a friend. It doesn't matter. Welfare and food stamp fraud are nowhere near as widespread as you think they are. Fraud prevention measures already exist. Most states actually do audit receipts from EBT cards looking for things like liquor.

Food stamps are one of the most efficient methods of economic stimulus. For every dollar spent on food stamps, more than a dollar comes back into the economy. Most people on welfare and food stamps have a job. The welfare queen is a myth.



Well, I'm not sure that ever was the topic, but what makes you say allocation of welfare is "disproportionate?"

edit: Also, teeth brush sounds weird. I might start using it.

for one the welfare queen thing is not a myth,it was the most common thing i saw in joshue tree cali which btw when i left there was 99% white.

second auditing people on welfare would probably show alot of them spending alot more than welfare provides.in cali almost all meth dealers were on welfare so people wouldnt start asking questions about why someone with no job has money.
 
I think the overall problem is that entitlement programs tend to allow the recipient luxuries they wouldn't take advantage of if they were paying out of their own pockets. I see a lot of food stamp transactions each month at Wal-Mart (spend a LOT of time there for work, unfortunately). Carts loaded with name-brand foods and expensive cuts of meat.....

I respect people who use the system responsibly, and I recognize they're the norm. But I have a very, VERY big problem with somebody buying food with government money and eating better than I (or any other ineligible worker) do. There's no reason foodstamps should cover lobster and prime rib and ostrich meat, or crap like soda, candy and energy drinks (thank god they gave those the boot, too).

I truly believe that part of the reason depression-era programs worked is because they stuck with providing a bare minimum to families to help them survive until they no longer needed any sort of assistance. What these programs have become is nothing more than a means of trying to take those at or near poverty and artificially moving them into the middle class, making sure they have all the modern amenities they could want. And when somebody wants to complain that the lady down the street getting food stamps, rent assistance, a free cell phone, free child care, free healthcare, and utility assistance is also the same lady who spends $400 a money on her hair and has every video game system in existence....well then we're called heartless for expecting her to live a little less high on the hog than those of us who fund her lifestyle through hard work and taxes paid.
 
Implies that no one on welfare is capable of getting a job above minimum wage, and doesn't acknowledge the need of more money for people with families.


Which 7 states are they, and what is the average hourly wage there? What is the cost of living?



What is the average pay for teachers in each of those 9 states, and how does it compare to what a person can make on welfare?

I encourage you not to blindly copy and paste info compiled for you by the CATO Institute and try to understand what the numbers mean in context.

BTW, it's a shame that people are against food and nutrition programs and unemployment insurance. It's a good thing most of us aren't.

Well, lets see, those states 7 states and those 9 states are probably in the 10 states listed at the bottom of the page, since it says they are the states with the 10 highest hourly wage equivelants. Just a guess.

Some of us are not against those programs, if the programs are reasonable, but really, over $1 Trillion dollars a year for welfare programs? That is really sad considering that the same government was only willing to spend $132.2 billion taking care of veterans Our Products - VA Office of Budget (this is the VA's total budget for 2012, hospitals, benefits and disability payments). And unlike welfare, vets don't get a choice in providers for this care and only receive free care at VA hospitals for service related disabilities, all other care they have to pay for, depending on disability rating. A Rating above a certain percentage will get you all free care (but only at the VA Hospital, not at a provider of choice). Retired Vets get Tri-Care for life, but have to pay to cover any dependents and there is a co-pay for visits and medications. Also, Obama wants to change the benefit and raise premiums and co-pay costs. After 22 years, 8 months of service, my take home retirement pay is still less than $2000 a month. And that pay does not get adjusted for where we live, like welfare does, but, there is some adjustment for dependents however, like welfare adjusts for dependents.

So, we pay more than a $1 Trillion a year on welfare and only a little over 10% of that much taking care of veterans, want take a real good guess on which ones contribute and have contributed more to this country? Tell you what, when we start taking better care of our veterans than we do welfare recipients, then come tell me I am taking it "out of context", until then, it's all BS to me.
 
Having an iPhone and receiving some kind of public assistance isn't an indication of abusing the welfare system.

The job prospects right now are absolutely atrocious, and given the lock-in of phone contracts, the fact that an iPhone -- at time of ORIGINAL -- purchase is near the top of the price range -- doesn't tell us anything at all about the coverage/usage plan the person might have.

Is the concept of a "sunk cost" really that hard to grasp? Or that people who are laid off and searching hard for employment still (especially today) may not find it for a long time?

Besides, people don't bat an eye at alleged welfare recipients keeping their cars, and those cost far more to maintain and use.

This just in, folks...you don't have to LOOK broke to BE broke. I only recently was hired to full-time gainful employment after eight months of scraping by on very part-time hours and freelance gigs, and these past nine months or so have been -- financially -- the worst of my adult life...but I still have nice things I bought during my previous time of higher income...did simply having those things mean I wasn't in dire financial straits? Of course not.
 
you don't know anything about that woman in reality. anecdotal evidence is just that.

I know she has an iPhone, foodstamps, and walked out of there and got into a car. I hopped into a bus at the time. I've seen women go to food banks when I was dead broke where I am barely making ends meet, and come out and put their stuff in an SUV. White women. Seriously, how is it anecdotal if I notice people are taking advantage?
 
People on welfare should be randomly audited for this sort of reason.

I don't disagree with this. I don't know if it should be an audit, as much as they should be more detailed about what bills you have to pay. Also no the woman wasn't black...although she probably thought she was....I've seen it more than once, I've seen men and women, country and city folk do it. This to me is as serious of a problem as us letting the corporate welfare system screw us over. The tax payer shouldn't have to pay for abuses on any end.
 
Having an iPhone and receiving some kind of public assistance isn't an indication of abusing the welfare system.

The job prospects right now are absolutely atrocious, and given the lock-in of phone contracts, the fact that an iPhone -- at time of ORIGINAL -- purchase is near the top of the price range -- doesn't tell us anything at all about the coverage/usage plan the person might have.

Is the concept of a "sunk cost" really that hard to grasp? Or that people who are laid off and searching hard for employment still (especially today) may not find it for a long time?

Besides, people don't bat an eye at alleged welfare recipients keeping their cars, and those cost far more to maintain and use.

This just in, folks...you don't have to LOOK broke to BE broke. I only recently was hired to full-time gainful employment after eight months of scraping by on very part-time hours and freelance gigs, and these past nine months or so have been -- financially -- the worst of my adult life...but I still have nice things I bought during my previous time of higher income...did simply having those things mean I wasn't in dire financial straits? Of course not.

You bring up a lot of great points, but if you are broke and have an iPhone that cost a little under a $100 a month how are you affording it? You make sacrifices. You unlock that phone, and sell it for $400 so you can feed the kids. Got that SUV? Well you need to choose, your children have what they need or you have a gas guzzling machine. I've been through the ****. Probably far harder than you. You bring up great points, but in the end they are void.
 
iphone 3s is 99 with a plan, she couldve gotten it before she qualified for aid too. Plan is likely around 40 a month for infinite data. She could also be on a minutes plan.
She also likely bought the car before her need for aid.

You can never understand someones exact situation.
 
Hunger has no color.

With that said...I have seen and witnessed and know too many people who are on foodstamps but don't bust a sweat when it comes to digging up the money for software for their new pc, buy cars better and newer than what most are driving, drip in diamonds and gold jewelry, own cell phones most would drool over, and still get food stamps. The system is broken. There are hungry people trying to survive the best they can yet we have these pond scums that feel entitled to rip off the system because they CAN.

It needs fixing.
 
1878346652.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg




:fueltofir
 
I remember that guy.

Thanks to him not only billionaires get government assistance. :)
 
You bring up a lot of great points, but if you are broke and have an iPhone that cost a little under a $100 a month how are you affording it? You make sacrifices. You unlock that phone, and sell it for $400 so you can feed the kids.

Or maybe you gain more income and opportunities through keeping your phone -- because you need a phone to follow up work opportunities -- than you would by deactivating/freezing your phone plan.

The point is not that having a nice smartphone and receiving some form of public assistance is incapable of indicating abuse of the system. The point IS that it is not an automatic indication of abuse EITHER WAY. I've actually met a fair number of homeless people who have phones because that's their lifeline to employment, while having a place to stay (even a cheap and run-down place) costs far more than showering/changing at a gym.

Got that SUV? Well you need to choose, your children have what they need or you have a gas guzzling machine.

Yes...but same as above...some people genuinely gain more financially from having a car (even a guzzling deathtrap) than not having one. Over the past eight months of my own underemployment, I came across hundreds of job openings for which -- except for having a car -- I was fully or over-qualified.

I've been through the ****. Probably far harder than you.

That's likely true, but irrelevant. The point is not some kind of silly one-upmanship game of who's had it harder, but rather that someone's appearance and visible possessions are not a reliable indicator of need or luxury. I've had some previous customers at my former workplace who seemed to have problems with basic hygiene and practically spent their entire day on a 10-year old beat up cel phone...turns out that same person (occasionally mistaken as homeless) makes six figures a year brokering big business-to-business contracts...he's just a slob, that's all.

You bring up great points, but in the end they are void.

No, they're not "void," they're real and true. See here's the thing...when people have conflicting experiences, it doesn't mean one or the other magically didn't happen. They BOTH did, and do. What needs revision is not the experience (unless you have a time machine), but rather the hasty generalizations derived from those experiences.

There of course actually are people who abuse the public welfare system and misrepresent their own income, their needs, or some combination of both. But this can NOT be figured out just by looking at someone and what they're carrying with them.
 
I remember that guy.

Thanks to him not only billionaires get government assistance. :)

that was true pre internet boom of the 00's,before the mellinium internet sucked was slow and had ver little good information,now if i want a grant i can just google it:cool:
 
iphone 3s is 99 with a plan, she couldve gotten it before she qualified for aid too. Plan is likely around 40 a month for infinite data. She could also be on a minutes plan.
She also likely bought the car before her need for aid.

You can never understand someones exact situation.

This was at the time the 3GS just came out, for $200. $40 a month for unlimited? Sign me up, where do you get that? All plans regardless of iPhone were the same on AT&T at the time.
 
Or maybe you gain more income and opportunities through keeping your phone -- because you need a phone to follow up work opportunities -- than you would by deactivating/freezing your phone plan.

The point is not that having a nice smartphone and receiving some form of public assistance is incapable of indicating abuse of the system. The point IS that it is not an automatic indication of abuse EITHER WAY. I've actually met a fair number of homeless people who have phones because that's their lifeline to employment, while having a place to stay (even a cheap and run-down place) costs far more than showering/changing at a gym.



Yes...but same as above...some people genuinely gain more financially from having a car (even a guzzling deathtrap) than not having one. Over the past eight months of my own underemployment, I came across hundreds of job openings for which -- except for having a car -- I was fully or over-qualified.



That's likely true, but irrelevant. The point is not some kind of silly one-upmanship game of who's had it harder, but rather that someone's appearance and visible possessions are not a reliable indicator of need or luxury. I've had some previous customers at my former workplace who seemed to have problems with basic hygiene and practically spent their entire day on a 10-year old beat up cel phone...turns out that same person (occasionally mistaken as homeless) makes six figures a year brokering big business-to-business contracts...he's just a slob, that's all.



No, they're not "void," they're real and true. See here's the thing...when people have conflicting experiences, it doesn't mean one or the other magically didn't happen. They BOTH did, and do. What needs revision is not the experience (unless you have a time machine), but rather the hasty generalizations derived from those experiences.

There of course actually are people who abuse the public welfare system and misrepresent their own income, their needs, or some combination of both. But this can NOT be figured out just by looking at someone and what they're carrying with them.

Honestly, to me it sounds like you are making an excuse for people that love to game the system. Being that I have been on the bottom, I have seen people on the bottom game the system to the fullest. Here is a point, I work with these two guys (twins actually) nice guys and all, but they see no problem with their mom getting food stamps. Their mom is a waitress that doesn't claim their income (or her husbands). Them and there father make less than me, but they still make $12 an hour in the same household. THe job I work at we work 7 days a week quite a bit. Both of them have new Mazda bikes, get new tattoos every other month, and have far more in savings than I do. One of them just pulled out 4 $600 checks he didn't cash the other day to show me how "ballin" he is. So what is going on there?

Anyways, you wouldn't defend corporate welfare abuse would you? Some corporations seriously need it to compete. Oil companies? Abuse. GE or McDonald's not paying any federal taxes? Abuse. What is your defense for them?
 
Honestly, to me it sounds like you are making an excuse for people that love to game the system. Being that I have been on the bottom, I have seen people on the bottom game the system to the fullest. Here is a point, I work with these two guys (twins actually) nice guys and all, but they see no problem with their mom getting food stamps. Their mom is a waitress that doesn't claim their income (or her husbands). Them and there father make less than me, but they still make $12 an hour in the same household. THe job I work at we work 7 days a week quite a bit. Both of them have new Mazda bikes, get new tattoos every other month, and have far more in savings than I do. One of them just pulled out 4 $600 checks he didn't cash the other day to show me how "ballin" he is. So what is going on there?

Anyways, you wouldn't defend corporate welfare abuse would you? Some corporations seriously need it to compete. Oil companies? Abuse. GE or McDonald's not paying any federal taxes? Abuse. What is your defense for them?

now if you only had an opportunity to personally benefit from turning in the crooks who you believe are exploiting the welfare system
just as we should allow those who report illegals to collect the fine their employer is obligated to pay for such hiring violation, we should similarly allow those who identify welfare cheats to collect a portion of the monies the government will save by no longer being defrauded
in both instances we would have a cottage industry benefiting the law abiding
this is what should be incentivized, not the having of a child out of wedlock to qualify for one's own subsidized housing and monthly subsistence check
 
Pretty soon this will all be taken care of.

Introducing...


iStamps.
 
kinda funny though welfare people get more money than i did working 40+ hours a week in a trained profession.

btw those who keep claiming attacking welfare is going against black people please show the studies that say black people heavily outnumber white people on welfare.

I call BS on your claim, CA cash benies top out at about 1100/month which is less than 300/week. The only ones making less than 7.50/hr working in a "trained profession" are circus monkeys
 
This was at the time the 3GS just came out, for $200. $40 a month for unlimited? Sign me up, where do you get that? All plans regardless of iPhone were the same on AT&T at the time.

I believe it's around 40$ for unlimited with almost any service atm. or at least thats what I recall at verizon store from a month back or so.
 
I know she has an iPhone, foodstamps, and walked out of there and got into a car. I hopped into a bus at the time. I've seen women go to food banks when I was dead broke where I am barely making ends meet, and come out and put their stuff in an SUV. White women. Seriously, how is it anecdotal if I notice people are taking advantage?



In other words, you don't know if the iPhone or the car belongs to her
 
I call BS on your claim, CA cash benies top out at about 1100/month which is less than 300/week. The only ones making less than 7.50/hr working in a "trained profession" are circus monkeys

thats around what i used to make working full time job,so yu are saying ts ok to sit on your a** and collect government money making more thn those who actually work minimum wage.

people like you sir are why people dont leave welfare,they have no reason to.why work a real job when you get paid more to do nothing.
 
thats around what i used to make working full time job,so yu are saying ts ok to sit on your a** and collect government money making more thn those who actually work minimum wage.

people like you sir are why people dont leave welfare,they have no reason to.why work a real job when you get paid more to do nothing.

A hole in your theorem, natural human greed for money garnered by working their profession is usurped by the desire to do nothing and make less money.

The entire welfare leech theory is mythology for the mostpart, I'm not sure how you can blame people for being unemployed during a recession. Then blame them for taking welfare, then blame the president for not providing the jobs in the economy they themselves are responsible for not having because they are lazy (and blame them the president for providing welfare). It refutes itself about 3x over given those elements and makes no sense. Perhaps a large convoluted conspiracy of some sort could explain the entire thing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom