Greatest Country In The World Votes To Cut Food Stamps To Poor

Wait, I thought your solution was to outlaw libertarianism? You know, the re-education camp thing I mentioned earlier?

 

The only thing of note around here is how people are shouted down for a difference of opinion.

 

Accusing your political opponents of wanting to starve "millions of children" to death is not a "difference of opinion. It is an absurd insult, and it makes it rational, honest debate impossible.

Which is, I concede, probably the goal.

 

Insult, insult, insult. Whatever you say.

 

Well, I try to play it off as a difference of opinion and you see the response. It's whatever.

 

I know.

Monkeys flinging poo.

 

You can't have it both ways. If the question is merely one of whether problems exist in SNAP, then fine, you can use the example of a few people. But you can't use that to also justify sweeping cuts to SNAP on the grounds that it has widespread problems and then say you never meant your narrow example to be seen as something indicative of a broader problem.

That's good. I appreciate your relatively measured tone in this post.

...And we lost it here. You misunderstood. The 2009 Recovery Act was passed by Democrats in a party-line vote and was meant to alleviate the effects of the recession. I think increasing SNAP at that time was good policy, and I think letting that increase expire now is bad policy, because the effects of the recession are still ongoing for the poor. My overall point was that the Democrat's expansion in SNAP was justified by the enormous decline in household wealth caused by the recession, and that now is not the time to make these cuts.

 

As if that's gonna happen.

I always love the implication that the rich are gonna suddenly give a doggy-style f*** about the poor. "Government is corrupt and inefficient. Let the rich have big tax breaks. They'll give so much money to the poor that if you offered the poor a filet mignon they'd say, 'No thanks, I'm stuffed. Well, maybe for my dog..."

Reminds me of "History of the World Part 1":

"Should we keep amassing more and more for the wealthy? Or should we support a more noble cause and help the poor? How does the Senate vote?"

(Senators stand, fists upraised, shout in unison):

"F*** THE POOR!!"

(1st senator) "Good."

Cutting Food Stamps is horse****. So a few people might abuse the system. It compares nothing to the corporate thieves of this country and the rimjobs our government gives them.

 

SNAP is more effective that most charities at helping the pour dollar for dollar. And the drug testing would cost more than it would save. You don't realize that it takes people and money to do that. YOu trying to put this example in effect is the epitome of wasteful and silly gov't spending that achieves THE OPPOSITE of what is intended. It's why conservatives scream about shrinking gov't when in reality they want to expand it. It's just expanding in ways they want to and Dems don't.

 

I have no idea how much the rich would give to the poor, but i find your assumption that the rich hate the poor hilarious. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.....

I make no claims that the amount the rich would give of their own free will is equal to what they give now. The gentlemen I was responding to didn't understand the freedoms received by certain legislation. So I explained it to him.

 

Which is exactly what I did.

Oh, so projected cuts of 5% out of a program that has grown by over 70% in the last 5 years are "sweeping" now, eh? Sorry, but no. I'd call them modest.

While of course not indicative of the entire SNAP population, those problems are widespread and they do cost quite a bit of money every year. And I still haven't heard a good reason why we shouldn't attempt to eliminate abuse and fraud, or why we should continue to give benefits to people who abuse drugs. As most of the cuts are projected to come from such actions, I need to hear decent answers to those questions before I can consider any counterargument to be remotely valid.

Wait, I thought we got out of the recession in 2009? Haven't we been in recovery for the last 4 years? I mean, that's what we've been told. It's almost like... we were lied to.

So when? When will be a good time? When have we recovered "enough" to make some cuts in our bloated spending levels? Do we just keep growing the program until the next recession, and then baloon it once again?

You see, these things never go back to what they were. Deficits have ballooned to unprecedented levels under this president. Baseline budgeting ensures that in the absence of an actual budget we run on autopilot, automatically spending more this year than we did the last. SNAP spending will *never* go back to pre-2009 levels. It won't even get close.

It is not too much to ask for responsible governance and stewardship of the public's finances. It is not extreme to ask that SNAP recipients not spend their money on drugs. Ity is not too much to ask that SNAP recipients have to work or look for work. It is absurd to argue otherwise. And demagoguery gets nobody anywhere.

 

As someone who has worked at both the federal and state levels of government I will say only this: hogwash. Absolute, pulled-outta-your-a$$ BS. The government is ridiculously inefficient, and more gets wasted on administrative costs than most people can imagine.

Extremely unlikely. If a $12 drug test kit can save you thousands of dollars by cutting off a druggie then you jump all over that.

Dude, I worked for CPS. I administered drug tests as part of my job. I know exactly what it takes to do it. And it isn't hard.

Says the man who thinks it's a great idea to give druggies taxpayer money for food so they can afford to keep buying their drugs? OK.

Those guys are called RINOs. The actual conservatives aren't generally too fond of them. Socialists in an elephant costume. If I could I'd give them all to your party.

 

You certainly have an increased say in how people live their lives when all of us are funding their lives.

I recall a bankruptcy case I was involved in. Food stamps were a part of the income. The debtor tried to put a monthly budget item for beer and cigarettes. The judge found that, because of the monthly budget items for these items, the case was not filed in good faith. What I don't know is how much the ruling was based upon the assistance income and how much of it was the budget reduced the payout to creditors and the creditors shouldn't be forced to pay for smokes and beer.

 

You've been talking out of both sides of your mouth, but it seems that this is generally your true position. Do you have a source for your claim that the reductions will mostly come from eliminating abuse or fraud?

The CBO says 3.8 million people will lose SNAP benefits in the next year. That doesn't sound "modest" to me.

Stocks have recovered. The wealthy are doing pretty well. The poor continue to suffer. Is that not something you've been hearing from liberals? Of course it is.

Hate to burst your bubble, but deficits have been declining since 2009. I would hope that learning this would cause you to re-evaluate your views, but I know it won't.

To answer your question, a better time to reduce SNAP spending would be when the economy has recovered more fully (perhaps in a couple of years) and when we've first cut other, more wasteful programs, like for instance the farm subsidies being considered alongside this very legislation.