That isn't true. Food stamps don't usually have the problems, that is WIC, where the items are very specific. There are people on food stamps that don't need them, but I'd call them a small minority. Fraud isn't the problem.
if we go by the royce white quotient and extrapolate, then we can assume that roughly 1 in 400 people on food stamps doesn't really need them and is gaming the system. that doesn't seem like a big problem with fraud
Fraud is a problem, but not the problem. I have a few family members who brag about how they can do this and that to grab more welfare money. Now, they're not "well off" by any means, but they get by. A cousin of mine has raised 3 kids without ever working a day in her life, and without any support from any of her nasty on-again, off-again lovers. I have a hard time believing that there aren't many out there just like them. The problem, of course, is institutionalized, state-provided welfare. But now so many are so dependent on it that there's no way you could just get rid of it. So, it just gets worse. What is there to do when the only people who want to change anything advocate just tweaking here and there, so as to not anger voting blocks or special interests? Nothing.
I wouldn't say that's the problem, excepting that it's the band-aid that keeps the real problem from being so bad we have to actually fix it. The real problem is a public policy landscape that doesn't invest enough in people so that they can provide valuable work and an economic system that does not compensate price-takers enough that they can invest in themselves or their children. So long as you have kids graduating from high school reading at an 8th grade level, you will have pressure to provide welfare. Taking away the welfare isn't going to make those kids get a better education in ****ty public high schools -- they'll just be more desperate versions of what we already have. The argument that welfare facilitates poverty is just a permutation of the idea that welfare is a vehicle of fraud. We're penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to education, training, poverty, and welfare. I don't believe you can fix the problem without investing some money (and investing it wisely).
Welfare is a lightning rod topic for me. My parents raised me and my sister making less than $40,000 a year until I was 17. Try refused to take food stamps. My dad would rather work a second job then apply. That is ingrained in me to this day and I remember times living alone when I had $25 for groceries for te week and waited in line behind some guy no younger than me with a cart full of groceries wearing new shoes (along with his baby wearing Jordan's) whip out his lone star card. It made me furious and still does. I keep it to myself most of the time but as a man I would feel like I was watching my wife w**** herself out in front of me by taking food stamps.
Great post! I agree with most of what you said. Yes poverty is real and is bigger than most people want to acknowledge. I believe as a global society we should help as many people as possible starting in our own backyard! I hope that if my family and I ever needed government assistance that we would receive a helping hand as well. Having stated that I am in favor of government assistance I would also like to state that we should not ignore that some people (and I have no idea what percentage) do abuse the system. 1) People who would rather remain in a lower paying job so that their benefits aren't taken away. 2) Couples who claim not to be together so that the woman can receive assistance for herself and the children. 3) People who don't report ALL their income because if they did they would lose their benefits. 4) People who continue to procreate while receiving assistance. I know I'm going to receive negative feedback for this but this does go on all the time! Regardless I'm still in favor of helping the needy even if we also end up helping the greedy. ....... ....... .......
I can relate brah! My father was the same and I guess I didn't fall far from the tree! ....... ....... .......
At the risk of oversimplifying and mis-stating your argument, it sounds like you think that more money should be given to public schools, and that this would rid the US of its welfare problem. Is that correct? Not trying to be combative. Just want to make sure I understand what you're saying here. I would argue that when you subsidize something, you get more of it. So if you subsidize welfare programs, you get more people on welfare programs. "Investing" more in a thoroughly failed public schooling system will not make that failed public school system successful; it will further entrench the problems already in place, at best. And I just object to the idea that politicians, lobbyists, unions, etc can (or even want to) "wisely invest" in anything.
It's a far cry from when people had to whip out those Food Stamp Booklets and pay for things. Food Stamp transactions are far less noticeable because Food Stamps don't actually exist anymore.
No, I think the key there is investing wisely, because we spend a lot of money in public schools and get a poor return for it. But, the problems don't really lie in the schools -- it's a much messier problem occurring in homes and neighborhoods. I can send my children to the crappiest school in the country and (while they would suffer for it) they'd still turn out alright because they have a stable home, educated family members, and the resources to succeed despite the school. But we have a lot of kids growing up in dysfunctional situations that have a much larger effect on their success than any effort a school could muster. To that latter problem, I don't think there is a solution. But, I think there are mitigations. But those mitigations require big battleship-turning cultural changes, and the lever we have are economic. I think reducing the wide economic disparity is a big part of that, and paying people enough to prosper, not just survive and procreate. That means tinkering with the market, which means creating some artificial short-term inefficiency (that's the investment), which is something some people are very uncomfortable with doing (even though we do it all the time). But done wisely, that investment in due time I think would make our society stronger and relieve the welfare burden by addressing it proactively instead of a reactive food stamp administation.
Maybe we need a system that is not so top heavy that 1 in 7 Americans cannot afford basic necessities.
Just remember Nate Silver and his statistics are biased/flawed. You are a sharp guy, and at times a very good poster.... but for someone that at times has prided himself of being objective, your track record says otherwise.
wow, you should go hang out at walmart more often then... food stamp fraud is very common and easy. I wouldnt call them a "small minority". Just like handicapped parking tag, too many people are scamming the govt blind. I've seen people use food stamp to buy steak and lobster, not to mention junk foods. Just like perfectly healthy folks, driving nice car, having a handicap tag.
What should they spend it on? Lima Beans and Spinach Only the 'nasty' foods no one else wants? What menu would you DICTATE to the welfare folx? The reality is some folx on welfare represent the ULTIMATE AFFRONT TO CAPITALISM . . . . they are satisfied with the bare minimum We *hate* people who are satisfied. . .esp when they satisfied with the bare minimum Rocket River Satisfaction is the Devil in the religion of Capitalism.
You don't get to tell others what they can buy even if it's with food stamps. Sorry if you want less freedom for people.
I think that's part of the problem though. Look at how unhealthy some of the poorest areas in the country are- I'd venture it's because a lot of them are buying junk food. I'm all for allowing people to get food stamps, but I'd like the comfort of knowing that they're getting healthy food. If that means I'm against freedom, so be it.
