Food stamps are crazy...

[sangha]

You appear to have problems following along.





Actually this is what I posted.

It is a question. It is not a lie either. Nor was it a strawman as you originally claimed.

Now in reference to my latter comment, how is THAT a lie?

That was a question; specifically a "leading question" like "Do you still beat your wife?"

Leading questions are a logical fallacy and it was a dishonest question.

 

[teamosil]

We all need food, clothing and shelter yet they are NOT rights, we are expected to work to provide these basic things for oursevles and for our dependents. The liberals and socialists have twisted these GOODS into RIGHTS, food stamps being a perfect example.

Something you get from the government isn't necessarily a right. Nobody in the US has proposed creating a right to food, although actually most countries in the world have one in their constitutions. I think it just muddies the waters to call it a right. A right is something the government can't take from you, not something that the government opts to give you. If the government spends $x on researching a new technology that doesn't mean the researcher has a "right" to that grant or that the people have a "right" to that new technology. You need to distinguish rights from privileges. Those things are privileges.

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

I mean, nobody likes welfare fraud. Certainly I'm not arguing in favor of welfare fraud or something. Nobody ever would. But some abuse is inevitable with anything. When a company sets up a supply closet they know some folks are going to take extra pens home. When somebody puts out a take-a-penny-leave-a-penny thing, they know the occasional person is just going to pocket the pennies. If you make free ketchup packets available to your customers, sooner or later somebody is going to come along that is so hungry that they're just going to take 30 of them and eat them for a meal. Such is life. It doesn't mean you just curl up in a ball and stop doing the things that make sense to do for fear of enabling fraud. If you spend $100 and do $1,000 of good, that's is what matters. If that means you spend $100 and $5 gets diverted to fraud and you do $950 of good, that's still a no brainer to keep doing it. It isn't like the guy taking the pennies out of the thing is like scamming everybody and living like a king. He's a desperate person in a situation nobody would wish on anybody. Same with the kind of person that would engage in welfare fraud. They're living just about the worst life in the country. Not only are they in abject poverty, but they're so desperate that they're willing to take serious risks of their freedom for just a few extra bucks. That's grim man. Certainly we want to do what we can to eliminate it, but really it inspires more sympathy than anger when you think about it.

And, it is also a whole lot more rare than people would lead you to believe anyways. There is no end to the stories of people who claim they saw somebody that they "just know" is getting welfare driving around in an expensive car, or the guy ahead of them in line at the super market paying for food with food stamps and wearing a Rolex or whatever... But all the actual studies show that welfare or food stamp fraud is very rare. The highest numbers I've seen have been around 6%. In fact, we actually have a bigger problem with people who should be taking food stamps that don't. People with kids that they can't feed who just let the kids be malnourished while they're looking for the next job because they're too proud to take food stamps. The stigma about poverty and government assistance does real damage that way.

Anyways, the point is that it's just how life goes. Some money ends up getting diverted to fraud in pretty much any endeavor. If there are easy ways to prevent it, by all means, that's great, but if the measures would create more costs or hassle than the fraud costs, then you just should ignore it as long as the program is doing a positive thing overall.



Making sure that the 15% of people in this country are able to eat with the food stamps program only consumes 0.3% of our GDP even during the peak of the recession. Much less normally.

The top 0.1% of our population consumes almost 20% of our GDP.

0.4% is a small percentage, but 20%, that's a huge percentage. $0.20 of every dollar you generate at your job ends up in the pocket of somebody from the top 0.1%. That's many, many, times as much money as food stamps costs you. So, I don't really see how it makes sense to worry about the 0.4% and not the 20%. IMO the right (not saying you are one) in this country has serious difficulties focusing on what matters. They get distracted by slogans. Somebody comes up with a catchy slogan for why they should be really mad about the guy cheating the system out of $10 a month and they never think about the guy cheating the system out of $100 million a month.

The problem I have, is with you constantly posting references to GDP.
GDP is by no means an indicator of the standard of living.
In fact the country of Qatar has a GDP per capita that is more than twice that of the US, yet our standard of living is much greater.
GDP is nothing more than a tool to evaluate the economic status of a country, not the country's people.

 

[teamosil]

The problem I have, is with you constantly posting references to GDP.
GDP is by no means an indicator of the standard of living.
In fact the country of Qatar has a GDP per capita that is more than twice that of the US, yet our standard of living is much greater.
GDP is nothing more than a tool to evaluate the economic status of a country, not the country's people.

I don't think I presented it as any kind of measure of standard of living. Median income is definitely related to standard of living, but as you point out, GDP is not because it can be very concentrated. I'm not totally sure how that relates to what I posted though. Can you explain more?

 

[Aberration]

So food stamps are justified because other food is subsidized?

No, but I'll point out that your need to invent straw men is probably the result of knowing that your argument is weak

The point is that someone who complains about poor people getting their food subsidized but says nothing about the subsidies that they receive is a hypocrit who doesn't really care about doos subsidies; they just want to bash the poor in order to feel morally superior

That was a question; specifically a "leading question" like "Do you still beat your wife?"

Leading questions are a logical fallacy and it was a dishonest question.

It was in no way comparable to asking if you beat your wife. It was also not leading. A leading question is also not a logical fallacy. It was also not dishonest.

 

[sangha]

It was in no way comparable to asking if you beat your wife. It was also not leading. A leading question is also not a logical fallacy. It was also not dishonest.

It was dishonest. If you wanted clarification, you could have asked "How is it hypocritical?". Instead, you tried to stick words in my mouth (and failed).

 

[Aberration]

It was dishonest. If you wanted clarification, you could have asked "How is it hypocritical?". Instead, you tried to stick words in my mouth (and failed).

It was not dishonest. I did want clarification. SO SORRY I didn't ask the way you want, so that you can be satisfied. I don't really care though.

And no, under no circumstances, in any situation that you imagination is trying to create, did I try to put words in your mouth. Not in any way.

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

I don't think I presented it as any kind of measure of standard of living. Median income is definitely related to standard of living, but as you point out, GDP is not because it can be very concentrated. I'm not totally sure how that relates to what I posted though. Can you explain more?

Well, it seems to me that you are using GDP as an arguement for welfare. Though I do agree we as a nation reap some of the rewards of our GDP. I don't think that the rewards are so grand that we can discount the money that is wasted on welfare.
No not all is a waste, there are those who truly need it. However, their is fraud in the system, and as a nation we are not living high enough of the government hog to discount it.
Of our GDP, more money is allocated to government pensions than social security. I think it's comical that a politicians still would have us believe that social security won't eventually collapse on itself, yet their faith in the system is so low that they require money from our GDP for retirement that is greater than the entire combined allocation for the nation.
Heck, the money allocated for pensions is greater than public welfare and public education.
That is sad.
Our base budget for military defense is roughly 600 billion, but we have spent nearly double that overseas.
The fact is, if the benefits we received from GDP were more evident, one could argue the welfare fraud is not worth worrying about. Sadly though, of our GDP we really don't see that much from it.
If government can get their spending under control I can whole heartedly support the welfare system fraud and all.
Also, when I say control spending, I am not saying necessarily saying cut it, but better allocation is in order.
Seriously if the politicians could deal with social security and private investing like the rest of every other American. We could double our education funding.
If every kid in this country had a shot at college, how much would welfare drop?
Fix the spending, and the fraud and waste will fix itself.
Until then though, I count my pennies and let my dollars take care of themselves.

 

[Muhammed]

No one is seeing people with an IPhone using food stamps. That's just the 21st centurys' version of Reagans welfare queen driving a cadillac

Actually I often date a girl with an iphone who is on food stamps. Her mother gave it to her for her birthday several years ago.

I wonder if these FTP people think all telephones and other means of communication and transportation should be forfeited in order to qualify for nutritional assistance.

I'd imagine that it's kinda hard to find a job with no phone and no car.

 

[teamosil]

Well, it seems to me that you are using GDP as an arguement for welfare. Though I do agree we as a nation reap some of the rewards of our GDP. I don't think that the rewards are so grand that we can discount the money that is wasted on welfare.
No not all is a waste, there are those who truly need it. However, their is fraud in the system, and as a nation we are not living high enough of the government hog to discount it.
Of our GDP, more money is allocated to government pensions than social security. I think it's comical that a politicians still would have us believe that social security won't eventually collapse on itself, yet their faith in the system is so low that they require money from our GDP for retirement that is greater than the entire combined allocation for the nation.
Heck, the money allocated for pensions is greater than public welfare and public education.
That is sad.
Our base budget for military defense is roughly 600 billion, but we have spent nearly double that overseas.
The fact is, if the benefits we received from GDP were more evident, one could argue the welfare fraud is not worth worrying about. Sadly though, of our GDP we really don't see that much from it.
If government can get their spending under control I can whole heartedly support the welfare system fraud and all.
Also, when I say control spending, I am not saying necessarily saying cut it, but better allocation is in order.
Seriously if the politicians could deal with social security and private investing like the rest of every other American. We could double our education funding.
If every kid in this country had a shot at college, how much would welfare drop?
Fix the spending, and the fraud and waste will fix itself.
Until then though, I count my pennies and let my dollars take care of themselves.

GDP means the total income of the people of the US. All of it benefits the nation. The reason it isn't a good measure of standard of living is because it can be super concentrated. So, for example, if you have 1 person making $1 million a year, and 9 people making $0, your standard of living is terrible- 9/10ths of the people are starving to death, but you would have a very high GDP per capita- $100k. So it isn't a good measure of standard of living. But it is a good measure of the total benefit the country derives from something. If something costs the people $100, but generates $200 of GDP, that is definitely a win. You just want to make sure that the costs are being distributed appropriately. Taxing income based on a percentage is one way to do that. Wherever that $200 ends up, they are (at least in theory) expected to put some of it back in to cover that $100.

Looking at government pensions as a separate category of spending doesn't really make a lot of sense. That is just a part of the compensation package we offer employees in all parts of the government. Usually the government pays less than the private sector. Often way less. But they offer pensions as a way to sweeten the deal to draw in good employees. So, really part of what you're seeing as spending on pensions is just compensation for NASA employees, part is compensation for people in the military, part is compensation for people that work at the CDC, etc. If they cut pensions, they'd just need to increase salaries so the workers could put more into their 401ks to attract the same employees.

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

GDP means the total income of the people of the US. All of it benefits the nation. The reason it isn't a good measure of standard of living is because it can be super concentrated. So, for example, if you have 1 person making $1 million a year, and 9 people making $0, your standard of living is terrible- 9/10ths of the people are starving to death, but you would have a very high GDP per capita- $100k. So it isn't a good measure of standard of living. But it is a good measure of the total benefit the country derives from something. If something costs the people $100, but generates $200 of GDP, that is definitely a win. You just want to make sure that the costs are being distributed appropriately. Taxing income based on a percentage is one way to do that. Wherever that $200 ends up, they are (at least in theory) expected to put some of it back in to cover that $100.

Looking at government pensions as a separate category of spending doesn't really make a lot of sense. That is just a part of the compensation package we offer employees in all parts of the government. Usually the government pays less than the private sector. Often way less. But they offer pensions as a way to sweeten the deal to draw in good employees. So, really part of what you're seeing as spending on pensions is just compensation for NASA employees, part is compensation for people in the military, part is compensation for people that work at the CDC, etc. If they cut pensions, they'd just need to increase salaries so the workers could put more into their 401ks to attract the same employees.

GDI refers to income, GDP is independent of GDI.
In theory they should be relatively the same, though that is not always the case.



Either way the allocation of GDP is entirely different than GDI.

 

[LizardofOz]

I totally agree that food stamps right now are a waste of government money. I think that it should be more like wic and only allow certain items. I have known people to get crab legs with them! I think food pantries are a great service and many times offer the sweets and junk food people crave. Many entitlement programs could stand to be reformed so they truly help people not make them dependent.

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

Here is the thing.
When in regards to any government programs I ask myself one question.
"if this were my house, would I?"
In reality we are all in this together.
You can think of the nation as one giant household.
If your brother was down on his luck would you help him?
Sure, most likely you would.
How many families in this nation are cutting costs any way they can to pay their mortgage?
Often this means cutting out junk food.
So, if you were doing all you could to pay the bills, including not purchasing junk food.
Would you allocate money so your brother could buy a candy bar each day?
In my house, I wouldn't do that.
That is what being fiscally conservative is about.
It's not some political religion to brainwash the masses.
It's about paying for your NEEDS before your WANTS.

 

[teamosil]

Here is the thing.
When in regards to any government programs I ask myself one question.
"if this were my house, would I?"
In reality we are all in this together.
You can think of the nation as one giant household.
If your brother was down on his luck would you help him?
Sure, most likely you would.
How many families in this nation are cutting costs any way they can to pay their mortgage?
Often this means cutting out junk food.
So, if you were doing all you could to pay the bills, including not purchasing junk food.
Would you allocate money so your brother could buy a candy bar each day?
In my house, I wouldn't do that.
That is what being fiscally conservative is about.
It's not some political religion to brainwash the masses.
It's about paying for your NEEDS before your WANTS.

So but what are you saying? That we should try to prevent fraud? We already do of course. We dedicate a large chunk of money to that process. Any more spending on that would outweigh any savings. Or are you saying that we shouldn't give people food stamps because it can never be totally free of fraud?

 

[justabubba]

I totally agree that food stamps right now are a waste of government money.

such a waste to feed hungry kids [/s]

I think that it should be more like wic and only allow certain items. I have known people to get crab legs with them!

clearly the only meat the poor should be able to eat is gristle
that will teach them to be poor

I think food pantries are a great service and many times offer the sweets and junk food people crave.

yes, let's make sure the poor have all the non-nutritious food items they want
fill them up while making them unhealthy
what a concept

Many entitlement programs could stand to be reformed so they truly help people not make them dependent.

yes sir. those infants and toddlers, those old folks who are infirm, let's get their diapered asses in the work force so they can pay for their own damn food

 

[LizardofOz]

such a waste to feed hungry kids [/s]


clearly the only meat the poor should be able to eat is gristle
that will teach them to be poor


yes, let's make sure the poor have all the non-nutritious food items they want
fill them up while making them unhealthy
what a concept


yes sir. those infants and toddlers, those old folks who are infirm, let's get their diapered asses in the work force so they can pay for their own damn food

Look up what WIC actually does then run your mouth. So when my wife was using WIC before and after my daughter was born while we were separated she should have been eating crab legs?

 

[Muhammed]

Look up what WIC actually does then run your mouth. So when my wife was using WIC before and after my daughter was born while we were separated she should have been eating crab legs?

What is wrong with occasionally eating crab legs?

 

[justabubba]

Look up what WIC actually does then run your mouth.

i know what WIC provides. for some reason you don't recognize that these posts are the result of typing with one's fingers rather than the use of one's mouth. glad to see i am not the only one on these boards who is technology challenged

So when my wife was using WIC before and after my daughter was born while we were separated she should have been eating crab legs?

didn't you read my post
being poor, your pregnant fiancee should have been forced to eat gristle because she chose to be poor and have someone else cover the cost of the food she and your pre-natal daughter required
why would our society think giving good food to a pregnant woman was a good thing? [/s]
show this post to her so that she can see you would have preferred that she have inferior food made available to her and your unborn child

 

[Muhammed]

So, if you were doing all you could to pay the bills, including not purchasing junk food.

How do you define "junk food"?

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

So but what are you saying? That we should try to prevent fraud? We already do of course. We dedicate a large chunk of money to that process. Any more spending on that would outweigh any savings. Or are you saying that we shouldn't give people food stamps because it can never be totally free of fraud?

No, I am saying butterfingers and three musketeers should not be eligible for food stamp purchase.
Those are wants, not needs.
Really, I have no problem helping my brother down on his luck.
However, when it comes to supplying him with things that half of the nation is having to cut down on and really can't afford, then I have a problem with it.
Isn't the purpose of welfare, WELFARE?
I have the welfare of my children in mind at all times.
Do you have children?
Do you allow them to choose what they want to eat all the time?
I am sorry if this comes off as cold hearted, but if your a parent you will understand.
Sometimes when you support a life that you are RESPONSIBLE for.
It is only RESPONSIBLE to have a few boundaries.
If we the people and the government want to take on the RESPONSIBILITY of assisting those in need. It's damn time we started acting RESPONSIBLE!

 

[LizardofOz]

What is wrong with occasionally eating crab legs?

It has far less nutritional value than say, chicken or even steak.

 

[LizardofOz]

i know what WIC provides. for some reason you don't recognize that these posts are the result of typing with one's fingers rather than the use of one's mouth. glad to see i am not the only one on these boards who is technology challenged


didn't you read my post
being poor, your pregnant fiancee should have been forced to eat gristle because she chose to be poor and have someone else cover the cost of the food she and your pre-natal daughter required
why would our society think giving good food to a pregnant woman was a good thing? [/s]
show this post to her so that she can see you would have preferred that she have inferior food made available to her and your unborn child

Obviously you have no idea what WIC does or you wouldn't be acting like a **** about it. My wife actually understands what WIC did and how it helped us through our tough times. It provided her with a lot of very nutritional food, provided the baby with formula that was vital to her growth, and my baby is in the top 99 percentile. I implore you to actually read what my post says. Just because I don't want people to be able to buy crab legs and ho-hos doesn't mean I don't want them to get asparagus and chicken.

I apologize for the phrase "run your mouth" perhaps I could have said "make interjections" or something to that effect, but where I was at the time it would have been hard for Siri to understand that.

 

[Muhammed]

It has far less nutritional value than say, chicken or even steak.

According to whom?

 

[teamosil]

No, I am saying butterfingers and three musketeers should not be eligible for food stamp purchase.

Well, the way it is written now you can use it for unprepared food or seeds, but not booze, smokes, prepared foods or food you eat in the store. They could theoretically go through and come up with a more detailed list- this thing is in, this one is out, but that would probably be a pretty major pain in the ass. They'd need to like classify every packaged mass produced food item, which is millions, and then they'd need some kind of standard for dividing non-mass produced foods up. For example, somebody before said they should not cover steaks. So what does that mean really if it covers beef generally, but not steak? Can a store just start calling their steak "beef" and then it is covered? An apple is presumably a food, but is a caramel apple? How about if it has a nut coating? Etc. And then you'd need to somehow train all the checkout people on exactly which items are covered and what the standards are... And then you'd need a pretty intensive process to like have undercovers going into stores trying to buy things for enforcement because every store would rather take the stamps than turn away a customer... Then you have the situation where the person could just turn to the guy behind him in line and say "hey, I'll buy your potatoes if you buy my three musketeers bar... I dunno. In principle, I don't think it is a bad idea, but in practice it seems like it would be a total nightmare.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Well, the way it is written now you can use it for unprepared food or seeds, but not booze, smokes, prepared foods or food you eat in the store. They could theoretically go through and come up with a more detailed list- this thing is in, this one is out, but that would probably be a pretty major pain in the ass. They'd need to like classify every packaged mass produced food item, which is millions, and then they'd need some kind of standard for dividing non-mass produced foods up. For example, somebody before said they should not cover steaks. So what does that mean really if it covers beef generally, but not steak? Can a store just start calling their steak "beef" and then it is covered? An apple is presumably a food, but is a caramel apple? How about if it has a nut coating? Etc. And then you'd need to somehow train all the checkout people on exactly which items are covered and what the standards are... And then you'd need a pretty intensive process to like have undercovers going into stores trying to buy things for enforcement because every store would rather take the stamps than turn away a customer... Then you have the situation where the person could just turn to the guy behind him in line and say "hey, I'll buy your potatoes if you buy my three musketeers bar... I dunno. In principle, I don't think it is a bad idea, but in practice it seems like it would be a total nightmare.

This is all pretty much true.

Administratively controlling for welfare fraud and waste is, well, also wasteful, and susceptible to its own fraudulence. Imagine the sentiment from major food producers if the **** they produce was no longer accessible to the ever-growing mass of people on welfare. There'd be all sorts of sneaky behavior from companies lobbying to have their food included on the welfare rolls.

It's a pretty sad fact that controlling for welfare abuse "isn't worth it" cost-wise. This is another aspect of why I despise federal welfare. Why is our federal government feeding us in the first place? It's a can of worms. It's "not worth" trying to control, but the consequences of not controlling it are also obviously deleterious. That's what welfare is: six in one, half-dozen in the other, and all of it is pretty inherently rotten. The fact that there are some genuine, honest, good but very unlucky people (the model welfare families) out there doesn't change the inherent slippery slope of welfare statism in a growing population.

PS, another props to post #2 by Aunt Spiker.