• 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

WWGWD said:
It sounds to me, and I may be wrong about your intention, but it seems you want to punish the lot, for actions of a few. From my experiences, there is nothing a poor mother wants then to get her kid out of poverty and ensure they get a better life. Obviously, you will have exceptions to that, but I don't think this lazy attitude you highlight is as rampant as you think. The people I have worked with over the years, want nothing more then to be able to provide for their families, and give back to their communities. This is just a viewpoint I pulled out my optimistic, liberal head. I can put names and faces to the people who actively work hard to help the next generation out of poverty and into productivity.

Is the system flawed? Yes. Should their be an emphasis on short term assistance? Yes. Is there an incredible need for reformation of these programs? ABSOLUTELY. However, just writing off an entire socio economic class as lazy, entitled, scam artist, is disengenous at best. I have no problem seeing that the people you describe exist and should be addressed. I just don't believe the rhetoric and the stereotypes that claim all people benefiting from entitlements fall under that category.
Click to expand...

Put out both of your hands.

Now, "want" in this one, and...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I'm not ignoring anything, but you seem to be content simply throwing stones to see if you can hit anything. How would you suggest we improve the situation that would create jobs for those that want to work, and what would you suggest we do if the jobs were available and some still chose not to work?
Click to expand...



Suggestions?? You wont like them. But for one, how about paying people a decent wage.
 
madman said:
Suggestions?? You wont like them. But for one, how about paying people a decent wage.
Click to expand...

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...
 
madman said:
Suggestions?? You wont like them. But for one, how about paying people a decent wage.
Click to expand...

In a price driven market where the top consideration for what people buy is price, how can this be justified? In order for a company to pay higher wages, they would have to raise their prices, and even with our current wages American made products are struggling to compete. Until Americans, and the rest of the world, stop encouraging exploiting the poor the "decent wage" idea has a nice ring to it but cannot be a reality.
 
WWGWD said:
Well that's not rude, disrespectful or unproductive, now is it? :roll:
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that the word is inapplicable.

I instantly dismiss arguments that use words like "want", "wish", "fair", "should", etc.

I live in a reality, not in a fantasy. I'm more concerned with how things are, not how I want them to be. I'd love to ride my flying unicorn to my money trees in Hawaii while I lick whipped cream off Jessica Alba's nicely bronzed rack before throwing the ball on the beach with Tom Brady. However, I'm not going to vote on any of those ideals.
 
Gipper said:
All I'm saying is that the word is inapplicable.

I instantly dismiss arguments that use words like "want", "wish", "fair", "should", etc.

I live in a reality, not in a fantasy. I'm more concerned with how things are, not how I want them to be. I'd love to ride my flying unicorn to my money trees in Hawaii while I lick whipped cream off Jessica Alba's nicely bronzed rack before throwing the ball on the beach with Tom Brady. However, I'm not going to vote on any of those ideals.
Click to expand...

And yet you generalize people based on stereotypes, rhetoric and assumption. That doesn't sound like reality to me.
 
WWGWD said:
And yet you generalize people based on stereotypes, rhetoric and assumption. That doesn't sound like reality to me.
Click to expand...

How do you think stereotypes become stereotypes, sweetheart?

Is every welfare mother out there worthless? No. Some fell on bad breaks and didn't have kids they knowingly couldn't afford. However, there's no realistic way to "sift through" everyone and determine who falls into which pile.

I'd offer fair alternatives. Large, extensive halfway houses where they can all live and get necessary help. Sort of like the YWCA - they can get a small room, share bathrooms, get free child care while they go out for jobs, etc. They can take advantage of food given out there like it'd be given at any homeless shelter.

What I'm against is just giving people money for the sake of giving them money. Don't subsidize their housing, don't give them indeterminate money and say it's earmarked for food, etc. They lost the ability to choose, and the right to be picky, when they got on the government dole. Make welfare minimum, humiliating, and useful only when absolutely necessary.

Don't give them money. Give them hope. Give them opportunity. However, give them only what they'll work for. If they meet you halfway, awesome - help them out. If not, corral them like cattle and give them just enough to live to the next day, because they deserve nothing more.
 
Gipper said:
How do you think stereotypes become stereotypes, sweetheart?
Click to expand...

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.

Is every welfare mother out there worthless? No. Some fell on bad breaks and didn't have kids they knowingly couldn't afford. However, there's no realistic way to "sift through" everyone and determine who falls into which pile.

I'd offer fair alternatives. Large, extensive halfway houses where they can all live and get necessary help. Sort of like the YWCA - they can get a small room, share bathrooms, get free child care while they go out for jobs, etc. They can take advantage of food given out there like it'd be given at any homeless shelter
Click to expand...

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?
 
WWGWD said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
tererun said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gipper said:
Awwww. *pinches your cheeks*
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Gipper said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Dirt Racer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tererun said:
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.
Click to expand...

No.... In Illinois they get paid per-kid.. $1,200 is the max per week (of course they get "their" taxpayer welfare monthly.)
 
I don't know if anyone here knows who Michael Savage is; but a few years ago I remember him saying that he was once progressive in his college years and was trying to do everything in his power to help people - however what he saw was a bunch of inner city welfare recipients living better than he did, and that totally changed his mind about the government and the system we live in...He was a college kid paying his bills trying to help the world while others got everything else for free but he had to pay $$$$ for it.....

How is that fair or justifiable???
 
I have no problem with welfare for those is crisis---it just has become an chronic condition that traps too many people in the long run. Hell we could have bought houses with land and given it to a lot of recipients more cheaply than paying for housing for them for generations. We need to throw the whole system out and start over.
 
Mr.Nick said:
No.... In Illinois they get paid per-kid.. $1,200 is the max per week (of course they get "their" taxpayer welfare monthly.)
Click to expand...

Mr. nick is completely wrong and has claimed something absurd that is easily debunked through some very simple means. This is the IL DHS site which defines the benefit levels a household can receive. The second chart on the page shows the decreasing benefit levels as you add more people to the household. however, you do get more benefits for each person. As one can see, the brady bunch would only get 1500 dollars a month if they included Alice and Oliver. that is 10 people for the kids to young to know what the brady bunch was. That is not even close to 1200 a week.

DHS: SNAP Program - DHS 124

So even the duggars wouldn't get 1200 dollars a week in food stamps. 1200 dollars a week totals 4800 dollars a month. You would need to claim over 30 people in your household to get 1200 dollars a week in food benefits. Perhaps mr. nick has just been poorly informed by a deceptive lying news source, but your friendly neighborhood me is happy to easily go to the IL DHS site and follow the easy to find link to the food benefits you can expect from SNAP. Now please step away until; you can offer up something close to the truth, and discuss this issue with some intelligence instead of spreading some absurdity that people are getting 1200 dollars a week in food. If that were even close to true i would agree with you, but just because you said it or heard it on fox news does not make it so. Oh, and if you are bothered because this post made you feel a little silly then perhaps you should check your so called facts before you make yourself look silly by making absurd and easily disproven claims.
 
Fisher said:
I have no problem with welfare for those is crisis---it just has become an chronic condition that traps too many people in the long run.
Click to expand...
The average amount of time someone stays on food stamps is about 9 months. Maybe a little longer now, given economic conditions from the past few years.

Welfare reform in '96 (passed by Clinton) essentially ended "chronic" welfare and replaced it with TANF. You get a maximum of 60 months in your lifetime in most states. After 2 years, recipients are required to work ("workfare") in order to continue receiving assistance.

TANF benefit are also around half as much as welfare benefits in the 1970s.

Social Security Disability is indefinite, but doesn't pay much and is difficult to get.


Hell we could have bought houses with land and given it to a lot of recipients more cheaply than paying for housing for them for generations.
Click to expand...
No, you couldn't.

The cost of the purchases would be immense, as would maintenance and upkeep. It would distort the market, far more than subsidized housing for people with low incomes. It would lock the individuals into those homes, far more than being limited to affording subsidized housing.


We need to throw the whole system out and start over.
Click to expand...
We actually pretty much did that in 1996. And here we are, less than 20 years later, hearing the same complaints.

In addition, it was only a few years ago -- with the same exact benefits and safety nets as we currently have -- that unemployment was at or near record lows. What's changed since 2007? The benefits haven't gotten more generous, their motivating power hasn't changed, people still want to work. What's different is that companies just aren't hiring.

Any program or solution to any social program can be improved. However, tossing an entire system overboard that already has limited benefit durations, relatively small payouts, and shows little sign of discouraging people from finding work -- offers minimal benefit.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I don't know if anyone here knows who Michael Savage is; but a few years ago I remember him saying that he was once progressive in his college years and was trying to do everything in his power to help people - however what he saw was a bunch of inner city welfare recipients living better than he did, and that totally changed his mind about the government and the system we live in...He was a college kid paying his bills trying to help the world while others got everything else for free but he had to pay $$$$ for it.....

How is that fair or justifiable???
Click to expand...

You believed 1200 dollars a week? That did not set off alarms in your head? Your problem is you are ignorant of the system, and you rely on the opinions of people qwho are clearly manipulating you with the wrong information because you actually want to believe their insanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom