As someone who works in the ghetto, I concur with the sentiment that fraud is not the main problem, but is a real problem. The fraud occurs not just with the end users who are abusing the system, but also with retailers that are not supposed to sell cigs and booze, but still do and just falsify their own records.
The majority in the country also have unhealthy diets. Can I circumscribe what you choose to eat? I'd like to have the comfort of knowing that you're getting healthy food.
Which would bring us back to the ridiculous idea that people retain ownership of the taxes they pay and anyone who receives a benefit is eternally indebted to everyone else in the country. I had that argument with tallanvor a couple weeks ago and realized the chasm is too wide to cross. I have no appetite for trying again. So, I'll just say I disagree.
Isn't the government already getting involved in what people are consuming by trying to put a limit on the size of a soft drink? Seems like dictating the types of food that can be "bought" with food stamps isn't that much of a jump.
or a small slide down the slippery slope. Every Insurance Company Actuary could probably show you definitive proof why clients eating certain foods cost their company more money . . . . Should they be able to dictate what their client eat? Basically through charging those that eat this or that more money? but back to the government. . . . once you allow them into your space. . .they never leave so once they one the plate .. . what else will they do there? Rocket River
By the way, in 2010, the US lost $305 billion or more to tax evasion. That's over 4 times the cost of food stamps nationally in 2013.
I certainly don't think it's an issue of the receiver being indebted to everyone else in the country. If the rules for food stamps were changed so that only certain foods were eligible, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. I also don't see any logic in saying that people shouldn't have a say in where their tax dollars go.
To be clear, when I say that people should have a say in where their tax dollars go, I mean that it's perfectly reasonable for discussions like this one to take place and that people should make it clear to elected officials how they feel. I am not advocating the type of directed allocation to specific government programs that was discussed in the earlier thread you're referring to.
A new Pew Research report on the economies of emerging markets reveals that nearly a quarter of all Americans are struggling to afford food, putting the United States far out of step with other wealthy nations, as Pew notes: Reports of deprivation are closely related to national wealth. For example, in Australia, Canada and Germany — three of the richest countries surveyed in terms of 2012 GDP per capita — roughly one-in-ten or fewer have struggled in the past year to afford food. Meanwhile, in Uganda, Kenya and Senegal — among the poorest countries surveyed — half or more say food for their family has been hard to come by. The United States is a clear outlier from this pattern. Despite being the richest country in the survey, nearly a quarter of Americans (24%) say they had trouble putting food on the table in the past 12 months. This reported level of deprivation is closer to that in Indonesia or Greece rather than Britain or Canada http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/rep...ns_struggle_to_afford_food/?source=newsletter
What percentage of those Americans that are have trouble putting food on the table or going to sleep hungry that are: - Under weight? - Obese? - Morbid Obese? Compare that with Non Americans.
Those of you who are so angry that a small minority may not absolutely need food stamps because they treat themselves to nice things (they shouldn't have nice things!) should do something about it. Maybe you should hire all of them or at least one of them, so they don't need food stamps. Truth is they might be getting help for 1 or 3 months. We're not talking about a lot of money here. The top .01% could hire all of them and it wouldn't even scratch their bank accounts.
1-3 months? What about lifers and those on muti-generational assistance. Nice things? If you can afford cigarettes, booze, drugs, gambling, cable, data plan, high speed internet, Jordan's, etc..., you shouldn't need assistance for food.
How much more expensive is high speed internet vs. slow speed internet? You can get quality Jordans for $50 on sale. That's how much a poor person should spend on shoes. Booze, drugs, and cigarettes are probably what lead to these people not having enough money for food. They aren't smart enough to manage their money and they picked up bad addictions. They still need to eat.
He brought up something that I find to be irrelevant. What is more noteworthy would be the number of people in those countries that are struggle that also have iPhones, Air Jordans, designer purses and the like. I know that, in my practice, I have encountered many people who cannot pay their mortgage or rent, but have Coach purses, Lincoln Navigators and designer shoes. That is no reason to let people go hungry, but we also cannot have a sustainable system that allows people to divorce themselves from their decision to purchase luxury items with their limited resources.
Also add to that corporate welfare which is close to 100 billion. Tax subsidies off shore at least another 58 billion, capital gains at 15% avoiding another 50 billion in taxes, the 700 billion bank bailout, also $9 Trillion in low and no interest loans at below market rates – some of it as low as .5% to banks. We can also talk about military budget which is astronomical. Let's try to get folks off welfare and help them but welfare to the corporate is ridiculous.
