• 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.

MKULTRABOY said:
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.
Click to expand...

your theory is flawed on my theory being flawed.

those unemployed get unemployment insurance,unless they are total screwups no one wil hire,or those people never tried.

you also assume every person wants to be better,if that was true socialism would never exist,alot of people strive fr bare minimum to maintain a lifestyle.if i was in there shoes and got to work at mcdonalds or get better pay to do nohing,i would do nothing.

just like there are those in any worklace who are always early and always work,and there are those who get promoted enough to make the minimum,then the show up last second and do the bare minimum it takes to keep from being fired.human nature itself is leaders and followers and the governments idea that everyone is a leader and no one is a follower is complete bs.
 
beerftw said:
your theory is flawed on my theory being flawed.
Click to expand...

Wow this is gonna be a good one.

those unemployed get unemployment insurance,unless they are total screwups no one wil hire,or those people never tried.
Click to expand...

I have never happened to have to collect unemployment insurance myself. How would structural unemployment fit into this?
you also assume every person wants to be better,if that was true socialism would never exist
Click to expand...

... this... is... indecipherable it seems and I can't make sense of this from any angle.

,alot of people strive fr bare minimum to maintain a lifestyle.if i was in there shoes and got to work at mcdonalds or get better pay to do nohing,i would do nothing.
Click to expand...

This is your contention, it is unproven (and you cannot prove it) and is essentially a value statement with no... 'value'... :roll:

just like there are those in any worklace who are always early and always work,and there are those who get promoted enough to make the minimum
Click to expand...

What is the bolded?

then the show up last second and do the bare minimum it takes to keep from being fired.
Click to expand...

Are they contracted to do more than they are hired for? That doesn't make sense.

human nature itself is leaders and followers and the governments idea that everyone is a leader and no one is a follower is complete bs.
Click to expand...

I thought the government by nature was above the will of the individual and their rights. Perhaps you're speaking of libertarianism, where everyone is an 'individual' unless someone has to use the government to interfere in the rights and desires of other individuals. Perhaps you have a quote of some sortof government manifesto stating everyone being a leader? Doesn't sound like any government I've heard of to grace the earth so far.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Honestly, to me it sounds like you are making an excuse for people that love to game the system.
Click to expand...

Honestly, if that's the case then you've failed to read correctly. That's unfortunate, given that our posts are the only things we have to form impressions about each other's position. Kinda sucks to have only one thing to work from...and get that one thing wrong.

JohnWOlin said:
Being that I have been on the bottom, I have seen people on the bottom game the system to the fullest.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to take that up with someone who has claimed that no one ever abuses the system. Since I've never made such a claim, however, that would be a conversation with someone else.

JohnWOlin said:
Anyways, you wouldn't defend corporate welfare abuse would you?
Click to expand...

I've never defended any form of welfare abuse, and don't plan on starting.
 
beerftw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Funny how your fulltime job in a "trained profession" suddenly lost the "trained profession" part when I noted how improbable that is. Suddenly, it became a minimum wage job.

Yep, I beleive ya!! :roll:
 
MKULTRABOY said:
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.
Click to expand...

The real hole in his "theorem" is how his BS fulltime job in a "trained profession" magically became a minimumn wage job when I called him out on it
 
sangha said:
Funny how your fulltime job in a "trained profession" suddenly lost the "trained profession" part when I noted how improbable that is. Suddenly, it became a minimum wage job.

Yep, I beleive ya!! :roll:
Click to expand...

i started out my job at below minimum wage at a transmission shop,at the highest point i made roughly around 12 dollars an hour,and that was being part owner,part of the reason i left that profession was it wasnt paying me enough.


when i got out of the army unemployment paid better than actually working.the average wage in this area for a diesel mechanic is 12 dollars and hour,transmission mechanics roughly the same.both are highly trained professions and both dont pay crap here or in most of texas west.its also a profession that requires me to invest half my pay into tools to stay employed.
 
OK, fine, then. Every month, like clockwork, all the WICK and food stamp people come into the BJs where I work and about HALF of them (50 people or so) use that government aid to purchase entire 1/2 pallets of candy bars, red bull, and other stuff, presumably for resale purposes.

We're talking about something in the neighborhood of 10K, or so. The GM does nothing about it, as it's not her job to report those sorts of abuses, and it's none of any of the rest of ours beusiness...and, ultimately, that's 10K in sales, which is good for the store.


However, that's 10K, in ONE store, not just ONE community, of federal and state aid abuses. And I'll bet my bottom dollar that if you called up other BJs in the area, in different towns, they got the same thing happening, all over CT. I'll go one step further, and wage the same for the rest of the entire north east.
 
DVSentinel said:
Why in the world would people in these states ever take the time to get educated or seek jobs when welfare pays so well? Welfare should never pay or grant more benefits than actually working. It should only be a helping hand when needed, not a life style choice. It does however encourage me that so few do take that route when economically, many would be better off switching to welfare. Unfortunately, there are those who do chose that path, and the numbers are growing.
Click to expand...

Working is not only about money, it is a matter of pride, feeling that you contribute and having something to do.

What if the woman with food stamps and an iphone was a staffer from a home for disabled folks? We do not know the answer when we see someone using public assistance. Maybe she is disabled in some way, not all disabilities are visible.

The attitudes often expressed about people on welfare are based mostly on assumptions. The stereotype that Regan talked about - the welfare queenis pretty much a myth. Yes, there are some people who abuse the system, but there are also plenty of people who steal from employers and stockholders etc. Do we weigh severity based on how much they steal or how they do it?
 
taxigirl said:
Working is not only about money, it is a matter of pride, feeling that you contribute and having something to do.

What if the woman with food stamps and an iphone was a staffer from a home for disabled folks? We do not know the answer when we see someone using public assistance. Maybe she is disabled in some way, not all disabilities are visible.

The attitudes often expressed about people on welfare are based mostly on assumptions. The stereotype that Regan talked about - the welfare queenis pretty much a myth. Yes, there are some people who abuse the system, but there are also plenty of people who steal from employers and stockholders etc. Do we weigh severity based on how much they steal or how they do it?
Click to expand...

That's true; not all disabilities are visible.

Whether it's from an employer or from taxpayers, stealing is wrong. And two wrongs don't add up to a right.

The last grifter I saw was a very attractive 20-something mommie. Beautiful wedding ring and darling little boy of maybe eight, and she was dressed very well and had an expensive phone. I wasn't paying attention at first, but then my wait became too long. She was trying to use two different food-stamps cards. Checker apologized to me for the delay and was pretty upset. I wondered afterward what kind of car this young woman was driving and whether it was more expensive than mine.

What made me sick was that her kid was standing right there. She's teaching him how to "get ahead" and that being honest is for suckers. There really are a lot of people who think this, who think that because they have a baby or whatever, they're "entitled." I'm all for a hand up, but that's not what I saw that day in the grocery store. I saw a very attractive, well accessorized and well-groomed, healthy young woman who was trying to brazenly commit fraud.
 
nota bene said:
That's true; not all disabilities are visible.

Whether it's from an employer or from taxpayers, stealing is wrong. And two wrongs don't add up to a right.

The last grifter I saw was a very attractive 20-something mommie. Beautiful wedding ring and darling little boy of maybe eight, and she was dressed very well and had an expensive phone. I wasn't paying attention at first, but then my wait became too long. She was trying to use two different food-stamps cards. Checker apologized to me for the delay and was pretty upset. I wondered afterward what kind of car this young woman was driving and whether it was more expensive than mine.

What made me sick was that her kid was standing right there. She's teaching him how to "get ahead" and that being honest is for suckers. There really are a lot of people who think this, who think that because they have a baby or whatever, they're "entitled." I'm all for a hand up, but that's not what I saw that day in the grocery store. I saw a very attractive, well accessorized and well-groomed, healthy young woman who was trying to brazenly commit fraud.
Click to expand...

do you know if this woman with the young son was being a kind soul, grocery shopping for two families which did not have the transportation to shop for themselves

or was she someone who assisted the food stamp fraud by purchasing the food stamp cards with cash at the current going rate of 50 cents on the dollar
 
JohnWOlin said:
So my wife showed me a picture on her phone that said in the caption, "Someday I hope to be able to afford an iPhone like the woman using food stamps in front of me."
Click to expand...
It's important to clarify what exactly is the problem. It's not that the welfare system is so generous, because it demonstrably isn't. It doesn't give people enough to afford iPhones. The US welfare is one of the least developed in the first world. The source of the problem is that this woman was illegally supplementing her welfare through cash in hand.

Not everyone on welfare does this -- in fact, most don't. By treating everyone claiming welfare as a cash-in-hand trickster, you're unthinkingly tarring them all with the same brush. This is exactly as unfair, prejudiced and irrational as all other kinds of discrimination.

One solution to this problem is to allow anyone to claim food tokens, including people who are working. The right not to starve to death is a right we can extend to the worst kinds of criminals...so why not everyone else?
 
UppityProle said:
It's important to clarify what exactly is the problem. It's not that the welfare system is so generous, because it demonstrably isn't. It doesn't give people enough to afford iPhones. The US welfare is one of the least developed in the first world. The source of the problem is that this woman was illegally supplementing her welfare through cash in hand.
Click to expand...
I don't think you and me are likely to ever agree on much, but we can certainly agree on this. State welfare is NOT getting anyone rich, by any means at all. Least developed....? Maybe...

Not everyone on welfare does this -- in fact, most don't. By treating everyone claiming welfare as a cash-in-hand trickster, you're unthinkingly tarring them all with the same brush. This is exactly as unfair, prejudiced and irrational as all other kinds of discrimination.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is trying to paint all with this one brush...you're just reading it this way. The issue isn't the people taking advantage of the system, it's that the system is so easy to take advantage of.

One solution to this problem is to allow anyone to claim food tokens, including people who are working. The right not to starve to death is a right we can extend to the worst kinds of criminals...so why not everyone else?
Click to expand...
The problem with this solution is two fold...how does it get paid for/how much MORE would it cost than to simply hand out actual food, and how to keep the system, or, more to the point, the people on it, honest? Lots of drug dealers out there accept food stamp and wick cards as a form of payment. It's just one small form of money laundering. And while we are on the subject of 'wasteful' practices in this field, why should gourmet sharp cheddar cheese, at roughly 8 bucks per pound, be on the menu of someone who is trying to "not starve" to death? Or ribeye? Or NY strip? Or shrimp?

I would say that, if someone is gonna eat off my dollar, and I have no real choice on the matter...then it's gonna be "back to basics". TV dinners should not be food stamp purchases...a bag of potatoes, some onions, broccoli, some frozen pees, couple pounds of chicken (and NOT the 2-3 dollar per pound MORE "organic" crap), sirloin, and pork chops.
Click to expand...
 
I agree that people on welfare should not have brand new iphones. But I encourage everyone not to jump to conclusions. It's possible to get a used, old iphone pretty cheap, or simply to find one like the one I lost on a plane a year ago. There are charities that give out new shoes and other products. I'm sure that the welfare system is abused quite a bit, but I wouldn't be so quick to base an entire policy decision based on one women in a supermarket.
 
KevinKohler said:
The problem with this solution is two fold...how does it get paid for/how much MORE would it cost than to simply hand out actual food, and how to keep the system, or, more to the point, the people on it, honest? .
Click to expand...
Contrary to popular belief, this type of thing isn't that hard to pay for. The UK (probably similar figures for the US) produces enough food to feed 60% of its population even though agriculture is only about 1% of the workforce. When you consider that US military spending is 5% of GDP, it becomes clear that it isn't really that difficult to give everyone in the country a guaranteed meal.

KevinKohler said:
I don't think anyone is trying to paint all with this one brush...you're just reading it this way. The issue isn't the people taking advantage of the system, it's that the system is so easy to take advantage of.
Click to expand...
The issue should be that unless you get clear about what the problem actually IS (it happens to be illegal supplementing of welfare payments), then you're treating the most marginalized and downtrodden people in society as if they're criminals. This attitude can drive people to suicide.

KevinKohler said:
I would say that, if someone is gonna eat off my dollar, and I have no real choice on the matter...then it's gonna be "back to basics". TV dinners should not be food stamp purchases...a bag of potatoes, some onions, broccoli, some frozen pees, couple pounds of chicken (and NOT the 2-3 dollar per pound MORE "organic" crap), sirloin, and pork chops.
Click to expand...
It depends on your income. If you're rich, then this claim that anyone who's less lucky than you should squeak by while you're on your third Rolls Royce, amounts to a pretty disgusting sense of entitlement which also betrays a complete lack of understanding of the inherently contingent nature of the human condition. One ought to be humble about getting lucky, not haughty. If you're not rich, then you have more of a leg to stand on.
 
Last edited:
Krhazy said:
I agree that people on welfare should not have brand new iphones. But I encourage everyone not to jump to conclusions. It's possible to get a used, old iphone pretty cheap, or simply to find one like the one I lost on a plane a year ago. There are charities that give out new shoes and other products. I'm sure that the welfare system is abused quite a bit, but I wouldn't be so quick to base an entire policy decision based on one women in a supermarket.
Click to expand...

Yeah really: at my school we had an App Symposium last weekend: show up, design 5 phone-apps with a kit and some help from people there: get a free, new, unlocked Window's phone.

The only reason why I didn't go is because our daughter fell ill with strep.
 
UppityProle said:
Contrary to popular belief, this type of thing isn't that hard to pay for. The UK (probably similar figures for the US) produces enough food to feed 60% of its population even though agriculture is only about 1% of the workforce. When you consider that US military spending is 5% of GDP, it becomes clear that it isn't really that difficult to give everyone in the country a guaranteed meal.

The issue should be that unless you get clear about what the problem actually IS (it happens to be illegal supplementing of welfare payments), then you're treating the most marginalized and downtrodden people in society as if they're criminals. This attitude can drive people to suicide.

It depends on your income. If you're rich, then this claim that anyone who's less lucky than you should squeak by while you're on your third Rolls Royce, amounts to a pretty disgusting sense of entitlement which also betrays a complete lack of understanding of the inherently contingent nature of the human condition. One ought to be humble about getting lucky, not haughty. If you're not rich, then you have more of a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm certainly not rich, whatever that means, these days.

What I'm saying is, if you don't earn it, don't bitch about what is HANDED to you. And the person doing the handing out should have a say as to what exactly, is being handed out.
 
The people on welfare who are really desperate to work, but can't find jobs, have been failed by society. They're owed something, as I see it -- and more than just cabbages. How you can prevent this from being taken advantage of is a separate question, and I admit it's very difficult. I think my guaranteed meal proposal is the best solution. If you think it's stupid, consider that some economists like Milton Friendman have gone further and proposed a guaranteed income. I like my idea better, because it would create jobs and structure society in such a way that the basic necessities are taken care of before anything else.
 
Last edited:
You know - a lot of people who are on welfare ARE employed . . . having children is what sets the 'employed and struggling' apart from the 'employed and making it just fine.'
 
Well, I was out of work for 7 months...yes, I had a part time job, making 9 bucks an hour, for 20 hours a week...and yes, I got partial unemployment. All told, I managed to take in, let's say....about 300 bucks a week, after taxes.

I bought a house about 3 years ago. I am married, and throughout this time, my wife retained her job, full time, salaried at 37K a year. Sounds like a lot to some of you, but in CT, it most certainly is not. Trust me. I have 2 kids, an 8 month old son, and a 3 year old daughter. My wife has around 600 a month in student loan payments, through Sallie Mai, who refuses to consolodate those loans...so the the amount is different every month. To top that off, my new born son had health issues.

We did not qualify for food stamps, or any other food aid, nor did we qualify for any sort of child care help, nor any other financial aid what so ever, throughout this 7 month period that I was out of a full time job. Now, I'm working again...not making as much as I did, had to finally settle for a job...any fulltime job. But WE were a family that maybe could have used some help. No help came. So, we got by on eating a LOT of pork and pasta, let some of my bills go unpaid every other month or so, which has likely played havoc with my once pristine credit score, and lived very frugaly for a time.

Meanwhile, at my part time job, there are no less than 8 people, just on my shifts, who receive government aid, and I know they do, because they talk about it during their break, and they do so exactly because they game the system. They stay where they are, because to move up, would mean a period of time in which they would have to live as I lived for those 7 months, and they have no desire to do that, and quite frankly, I don't blame them. One guy in particular has it made in the shade...he works 25 hours a week, at an EASY job which pays little, but he has a girlfriend with 5 kids, who does NOT work...they are not married, so she files single, he has a PO box so that it looks like he does not live with her, and thus, she has EVERYTHING in her life paid for, in full. Housing, food, school stuff, clothes, everything. His income is so that they can have a nice flat screen TV, with an Xbox 360, PS3, AND a Wii, plus a nice surround sound system, and he drives an older BMW. He has other friends who live in the same complex, all with the same or similar set ups.

Anger?


You're god damned right there's anger.
 
Then you should be equally angry toward the equally crooked and manipulative class of executives, whose income has increased 60% during the recession. The only difference is they're getting a deal more than a flatscreen TV and an Xbox.

These kind of problems are only insoluble within the framework of capitalism. Spreading resources more evenly would mean that the rich have to give up their third Rolls Royce so working people could afford some luxuries for their children and themselves. The only argument against this that I have heard is that it would kill "incentive". It falls apart on even passing inspection. There's not a shred of evidence supporting the idea that extreme wealth inequality is driving force behind innovation.
 
Last edited:
UppityProle said:
Then you should be equally angry toward the equally crooked and manipulative class of executives, whose income has increased 60% during the recession. The only difference is they're getting a deal more than a flatscreen TV and an Xbox.
Click to expand...

You're moving the goalposts. Don't distract. The way to fix corporate welfare is to reform the tax code, introduce a sales tax and a flatter tax. Our 70,000 pages of tax code are rife with special tax favors to campaign donors. It's impossibly corrupt. A flatter tax and national sales tax need to be major parts of our federal revenue pie.

These kind of problems are only insoluble within the framework of capitalism.
Click to expand...

False. They are insoluble when a central government has all the power, because with power comes opportunity for corruption, and the powerful and rich tend to go hand and hand, and they befriend each other. To make your scheme work you still have to trust the rich and powerful foxes to do a better job guarding the henhouse.

Spreading resources more evenly would mean that the rich have to give up their third Rolls Royce so working people could afford some luxuries for their children and themselves.
Click to expand...

1) As above, trusting the elite classes to regulate themselves more oppressively is a major implementation problem.
2) Yes, incentive is also a problem (as you note below)
3) Like so many progressives you like casting stereotypes about "the rich" as having yachts and million dollar cars. Stereotypes make for weak arguments.

The only argument against this that I have heard is that it would kill "incentive". It falls apart on even passing inspection. There's not a shred of evidence supporting the idea that extreme wealth inequality is driving force behind innovation.
Click to expand...

There's all sorts of evidence that innovation and wealth inequality are strongly correlated. Consider that technological innovation makes jobs easier or eliminates them altogether. We can automate and computerize so many jobs that, 60 years ago, was absolutely impossible to do. When we innovate, we reduce the need for human labor, and find cheaper ways to do the same job using machines and computers. Businesses fail and/or are bought up by the most successful ones, meaning very few are producing most of the things we consume. In other words, no one is suggesting that wealth inequality creates innovation. What we should acknowledge is that innovation leads to greater wealth inequality.

ANYWAY, back to the topic, which is about welfare fraud/abuse/waste.
 
Last edited:
UppityProle said:
Then you should be equally angry toward the equally crooked and manipulative class of executives, whose income has increased 60% during the recession. The only difference is they're getting a deal more than a flatscreen TV and an Xbox.

These kind of problems are only insoluble within the framework of capitalism. Spreading resources more evenly would mean that the rich have to give up their third Rolls Royce so working people could afford some luxuries for their children and themselves. The only argument against this that I have heard is that it would kill "incentive". It falls apart on even passing inspection. There's not a shred of evidence supporting the idea that extreme wealth inequality is driving force behind innovation.
Click to expand...

can't agree with you
the solution to welfare fraud is not taxing high earners to cover the additional costs of such fraud
the solution is to ferret out and end said fraud
 
UppityProle said:
It's important to clarify what exactly is the problem. It's not that the welfare system is so generous, because it demonstrably isn't. It doesn't give people enough to afford iPhones. The US welfare is one of the least developed in the first world. The source of the problem is that this woman was illegally supplementing her welfare through cash in hand.

Not everyone on welfare does this -- in fact, most don't. By treating everyone claiming welfare as a cash-in-hand trickster, you're unthinkingly tarring them all with the same brush. This is exactly as unfair, prejudiced and irrational as all other kinds of discrimination.

One solution to this problem is to allow anyone to claim food tokens, including people who are working. The right not to starve to death is a right we can extend to the worst kinds of criminals...so why not everyone else?
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. I don't know if that would be a solution. I think a wic type solution to totally replace food stamps would help. Wic is terribly underfunded in comparison to the SNAP program and I believe it should be the other way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom