US spending on food stamps at all time high

[Magox]

What's the point? Sort of like men are from Mars and women are from Venus sort of thing....

[IDBillzFan]

We can't continue the upward spiraling cost to make everybody "comfortable". The numbers say that loud and clear and we all know that there are millions that abuse the system. Many people have to feel pain in order to act. Being unproductive when you could be otherwise should be painful, not comfortable. People need to go to family for help before they go to the government. People need to know that having kids and raising them well is expensive and if they can't afford it, they shouldn't have kids. We need to reward productive behavior and punish unproductive behavior. That's the only way we'll get change. We're doing more of the opposite. We're creating a dependent class and buying their votes with other people's money.

 

That said, we have to find ways to increase jobs not at the expense of taxpayers. When an economic downturn occurs, we have to know that we can extend some rope to those in need while also knowing that it's truly temporary. If governments were more fiscally responsible overall, taxpayers IMO would have little or no objection to extending help to those truly in need.

 

For now the Feds are spending like drunken sailors, adding Federal Government jobs (which creates more defecit spending) and extending greater benefits to the unproductive at the expense of those that are productive now and in the future.

Completely agree. I'll add that the drunken sailor routine is going to particularly bite them in the ass when they start explaining they can no longer extend unemployment benefits, at which point you're going to watch every member of the Huffington Post and DailyKos crap purple Twinkies at the same time. They'll all find the only difference between the Democrats in Congress and Jim Bunning is that Bunning saw what was coming back in April and had the guts to say it then.

[Gene Frenkle]

At least you're consistent. All mock, no conversation.

 

 

No, we must help everyone. It's too hard to figure out who needs it and who doesn't. It's just too gosh darn hard.

I'm not saying the system is good the way it is, but you offer no solutions, only rhetoric. When pressed, you say I'm mocking you and offer more of the same. I may be all mock, but I'm not wrong because you have no substance to your "solution". All you seem capable of here is spouting idealistic conservative ideas. Please prove me wrong and provide something concrete. Any idiot can say we need tougher criteria without actually providing it.

[Doc]

I'm not saying the system is good the way it is, but you offer no solutions, only rhetoric. When pressed, you say I'm mocking you and offer more of the same. I may be all mock, but I'm not wrong because you have no substance to your "solution". All you seem capable of here is spouting idealistic conservative ideas. Please prove me wrong and provide something concrete. Any idiot can say we need tougher criteria without actually providing it.

What is better? Saying the system needs to change but not offering a step-by-step plan, or going along with the current failing system, which is only making things worse for everyone except those it purports to help (and even then, there will come a time when a hard decision will have to be made)? This is the same problem facing Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. No one wants to change them and disrupt peoples' lives because "they need the help," not to mention politicians don't want to lose their vote. But in doing so, we continue to march off the cliff.

 

I think Dante's idea of having welfare recipients going out and doing comminity work is an excellent idea. Why can't that be implemented?

[Jim in Anchorage]

What is better? Saying the system needs to change but not offering a step-by-step plan, or going along with the current failing system, which is only making things worse for everyone except those it purports to help (and even then, there will come a time when a hard decision will have to be made)? This is the same problem facing Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. No one wants to change them and disrupt peoples' lives because "they need the help," not to mention politicians don't want to lose their vote. But in doing so, we continue to march off the cliff.

 

I think Dante's idea of having welfare recipients going out and doing comminity work is an excellent idea. Why can't that be implemented?

For the same reason prisoner work is opposed. They would be doing work otherwise done by highly paid city union employees.

[Gene Frenkle]

What is better? Saying the system needs to change but not offering a step-by-step plan, or going along with the current failing system, which is only making things worse for everyone except those it purports to help (and even then, there will come a time when a hard decision will have to be made)? This is the same problem facing Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. No one wants to change them and disrupt peoples' lives because "they need the help," not to mention politicians don't want to lose their vote. But in doing so, we continue to march off the cliff.

 

I think Dante's idea of having welfare recipients going out and doing comminity work is an excellent idea. Why can't that be implemented?

I think Dante's idea is fine, and I said as much. Propose a solution instead of mindlessly bitching and spouting tired party-line rhetoric and cliches like "They would be doing work otherwise done by highly paid city union employees". That's all I'm saying.

[IDBillzFan]

I'm not saying the system is good the way it is, but you offer no solutions, only rhetoric. When pressed, you say I'm mocking you and offer more of the same. I may be all mock, but I'm not wrong because you have no substance to your "solution". All you seem capable of here is spouting idealistic conservative ideas. Please prove me wrong and provide something concrete. Any idiot can say we need tougher criteria without actually providing it.

You don't press. You mock. Regardless, we both know I can't single-handedly re-write the food stamp laws, but I can tell you what I've seen, and what I would change. First, my understanding is you can get food stamps for up to five years. That's ridiculous and does nothing to give people incentives to get off the program. That needs to be cut back to a year. If you can't get your life together in a year, then you better damn well have a good reason, and THAT should be proven. So if you're handicapped, I get that. But if you're a meth whore, I don't.

 

Next, you have to eliminate the incentive to earn more food stamps by having more babies. I'm sure you find it heartless, but if you're too damn helpless to get a job, you should stop having babies. One of the biggest problems with things like food stamps is that it easily becomes generational. You have to stop the cycle. Enabling the cycle, especially by providing incentive programs to get more food stamps if you have more babies, is embarrassing as a culture. We shouldn't be encouraging people to do more to participate in the program.

 

It's also my understanding that some laws have been improved to penalize people (and stores) for trafficking food stamps, but from what I've personally witnessed, it's not enough. Food stamps should be like a check; when you redeem it, you need a valid ID to prove it is yours. As it is, all you get now is an easily transferred coupon book. While it would be more costly up front, it would keep people from bartering their food stamps for booze, drugs, etc, which is exactly what a lot of recipients do. It's a horrible abuse of the system.

 

There are some programs in place to ensure people are going to job training seminars, but are they really being adhered to? Can we do better to determine who is trying and who's not? Who's showing up and who's not? Maybe we should try something a bit more stringent. Maybe if you miss two job training seminars, you lose your benefits. Probably too tough for your bleeding heart, but a few less bleeding hearts is what is needed to begin the fix.

 

I'm sure all of this is just party-line nonsense to you because it means busting some balls, making people unhappy, and holding people accountable. But it's where I'd start.

[drnykterstein]

You don't press. You mock. Regardless, we both know I can't single-handedly re-write the food stamp laws, but I can tell you what I've seen, and what I would change.

 

You are telling me you would do something reasonable such as try to fix a food stamp program that needs fixing, instead of getting rid of it altogether? You must be a socialist communist nazi muslim elitist!!

[Bishop Hedd]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/26...debate-welfare/

 

Obama promised change and we're getting change all right.

Well...we all gotta eat...right?

[drnykterstein]

Well...we all gotta eat...right?

 

Should healthcare eating be a right in this country?

[Magox]

Should healthcare eating be a right in this country?

on all counts....

[ExiledInIllinois]

Instead we are eating ourselves.

[Gene Frenkle]

You don't press. You mock. Regardless, we both know I can't single-handedly re-write the food stamp laws, but I can tell you what I've seen, and what I would change. First, my understanding is you can get food stamps for up to five years. That's ridiculous and does nothing to give people incentives to get off the program. That needs to be cut back to a year. If you can't get your life together in a year, then you better damn well have a good reason, and THAT should be proven. So if you're handicapped, I get that. But if you're a meth whore, I don't.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. - Thomas Jefferson

 

Apparently when ridiculed, you come up with more distinct propositions. I think cutting it to one year is a bit drastic, but five seems too long...

 

Next, you have to eliminate the incentive to earn more food stamps by having more babies. I'm sure you find it heartless, but if you're too damn helpless to get a job, you should stop having babies. One of the biggest problems with things like food stamps is that it easily becomes generational. You have to stop the cycle. Enabling the cycle, especially by providing incentive programs to get more food stamps if you have more babies, is embarrassing as a culture. We shouldn't be encouraging people to do more to participate in the program.

Not only is this heartless, it's unrealistic. Your conservative idealism is creeping in here. Do you really think the people who end up on food stamps for extended periods of time are going to do the responsible thing and not make babies? Do you really want to see starving children in the streets of America? Should the greatest nation not be able to provide FOOD for its children? Do we live in Sub-Saharan Africa? You can't punish (starve) children because their parents are deadbeats.

 

It's also my understanding that some laws have been improved to penalize people (and stores) for trafficking food stamps, but from what I've personally witnessed, it's not enough. Food stamps should be like a check; when you redeem it, you need a valid ID to prove it is yours. As it is, all you get now is an easily transferred coupon book. While it would be more costly up front, it would keep people from bartering their food stamps for booze, drugs, etc, which is exactly what a lot of recipients do. It's a horrible abuse of the system.

Agreed.

 

There are some programs in place to ensure people are going to job training seminars, but are they really being adhered to? Can we do better to determine who is trying and who's not? Who's showing up and who's not? Maybe we should try something a bit more stringent. Maybe if you miss two job training seminars, you lose your benefits. Probably too tough for your bleeding heart, but a few less bleeding hearts is what is needed to begin the fix.

So pour more money into making sure the program is adhered to? I think we could find some compromise here, though again, I think yours is a bit harsh. We're still talking about taking food away from Americans.

 

I'm sure all of this is just party-line nonsense to you because it means busting some balls, making people unhappy, and holding people accountable. But it's where I'd start.

No, it seems to me that you actually thought about it and had some valid points of your own. Congrats.

[OCinBuffalo]

The main problem I see is: how do we separate the innocent from the guilty, in terms of low-life parents, and their unlucky kids? Stripping the parents of benefits will hit the kids the hardest, because Gene Frenkle is full of schit:

1. The most selfish people in this country are not Republicans

2. The most selfish people in this country are those that will sacrifice their own kids' well-being for: that next 6 pack, 40 oz, 8th or gram...or, merely the ability to spend even more time doing nothing/watching Oprah while sitting on the couch.

 

But, the punishment these selfish a-holes so blatantly deserve will cause unintended consequences. Schit rolls down hill, and in this case, right on top of their kids. The kids are most likely to bear the brunt of punishment because their parents are: the most selfish people in this country, and therefore, food and definitely clothing takes a back seat.

 

In many cases, school food is the only food these kids eat. In many cases, these kids purposely ensure they go to summer school...so at least they will eat. (Perhaps Gene should do a survey and see how many of these kid's parents are registered Republican??)This is why I don't think punishment/take things away will get the whole job done.

 

So what's left? Take the kid away? And send them where? Noplace. We don't have enough foster homes, and many are sketchy.

 

Ultimately I don't see any solution working that pretends that these parents aren't the most selfish people in the country. This is simply a fact that any REAL solution must be based on.

 

Instead of ignoring the selfishness, or, pretending that giving away free money to people with f'ed up priorities, is suddenly going to stop them from having f'ed up priorities....because seriously, wtf are you thinking? are you thinking? whatever, LBJ ....I say we USE the selfishness. In fact, we revel in it.

 

Instead of a punishment system: we enact a reward system. Let's face it, we have to take care of these kids, or, we are just moving the problem from one place to another. So, with the assumption that we have to spend money on this, we spend it, but we do it a hell of a lot smarter:

 

1. $500 per semester for perfect attendance minus sick days(determined by school nurse), per kid....or....NOTHING.

2. A personalized "school plan" prepared by a group of teachers. If the kid meets the goals of the plan, that's worth $1k.

etc. etc. etc.

 

Kid meets the goals, parent gets the $$$. Kid misses some goals, the $$$ goes into a per kid account that is overseen by accounting firms that bid by school to handle the program. Each account is given a debit card and all spending receipts must be turned in. Again, I remind you: we are already spending this $$$, this is just a way to spend it...reasonably.

 

IF it is determined by the school "team" that the parents are directly causing the kids to consistently miss their goals, then they lose their access to the kids account, and, a volunteer "shopper" is assigned. Also, a mandatory after school study hall is put in place, as well as dinner, and the kid is done at 8pm. How do we pay for it? Right out of the kids' account. The best part is motivation for the kid: if there is $$ left in the kid's account, and they graduate high school, they can apply it to spending $$ for college/buying a car, etc.

 

What about something like that? If the parent does their job, they can end up with some decent $$$, even if their kid is a dope. Ultimately, I guarantee this is cheaper than wasting the $$$ we are already spending, and, paying for jail, prison, "more cops on the streets", and all the rest.

[Booster4324]

The main problem I see is: how do we separate the innocent from the guilty...

 

Not sure on your numbers, but that is the best post (except for the needless attack on Gene) I have seen you make. I genuinely like your idea. Kudos. I know you have been awaiting my approval.

[OCinBuffalo]

Not sure on your numbers, but that is the best post (except for the needless attack on Gene) I have seen you make. I genuinely like your idea. Kudos. I know you have been awaiting my approval.

Thanks. But, it's not a needless attack. Reread this thread. People like Gene are more interested in propping up LBJ/FDR ideas, 50 frigging years later, and covering asses, than actually solving TODAY's problems. How they think that the same incompetent buffoon that was 95% responsible for the Vietnam debacle...was suddenly completely cogent and competent in creating the Great Society, staggers the imagination. Medicaid was "intended" for young disabled workers. Today, 90% of it is spent on the elderly. Hmm. Again, the word "debacle" comes to mind.

 

How does that happen? Easy: it wasn't thought through. So, let's do a little exercise:

 

Here's the truth:

1. We have to do something about poor kids getting a fighting chance -> education, food, clothing, and some self respect.

2. A solution involves subsidizing these kids, which means giving their parents $$ in some form

 

Now, here's where Gene goes off the rails:

3. Instead of just solving that problem, they double down, and create a massive DC bureaucracy to manage a massive program that requires massive Federal Tax dollars, so that not only are we helping people, we are "creating jobs". And, we will focus all of new employee's time on "studying" things like the effects of losing soccer games on self-esteem, instead of actually helping solve the problem directly in terms of dollars applied :: results

 

And, when I point out the patent stupidity of 3, especially "why do we need the Federal Government meddling in a state, but mostly local issue?":

4. Gene tells me that I don't care about or even acknowledge 1 and 2, in a lame attempt to distract from my rational criticism of 3/LBJ nonsense.

5. The fact is, we know all about 1-2, and we want to do something about it, we just hate the 3 way of doing it.

6. And the capper is: instead of dealing with the reality that a disporportionate # of minority "families" are actually single mothers with f'ed up priorities, and therefore, grandmothers are stepping in and using what little money they have to assist in childcare.....Gene refuses to acknowledge these simple truths and calls us all racists for simply telling it like it is.

7. I offer a REAL solution that actually has a chance of working, and I am sure I will be hearing 4 and 6 all day long.

 

So no, the real problem here is: BS premises. I don't deny Gene's ability to reason. I do deny what he bases that reason on.

[Doc]

Not only is this heartless, it's unrealistic. Your conservative idealism is creeping in here. Do you really think the people who end up on food stamps for extended periods of time are going to do the responsible thing and not make babies? Do you really want to see starving children in the streets of America? Should the greatest nation not be able to provide FOOD for its children? Do we live in Sub-Saharan Africa? You can't punish (starve) children because their parents are deadbeats.

If you give someone something for free, they'll have NO incentive to get it by any other means. They're like your kids who have graduated (or not) who don't have a spouse or job, who you let live in your basement rent free and for whom you cook and clean. They have NO incentive to leave that situation. So you have to make a hard decision and throw them out because it's not healthy for either of you. If THEY chose to let their OWN children suffer, it's no one's fault but their own. I have my own kids to worry about.