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

So SL42, now that you're on record agreeing with me that people who are using drugs shouldn't get benefits (you are, aren't you?), how about that other "bizarre" question.

Should we continue to give benefits to people who have gone for years without working or attempting to find work? It's a simple question, and no matter how "bizarre" you find it I think it's relevant to the discussion. Humor me, please, and answer it. I've asked it several times...

 

I would support this program more if was called OH SNAP!

 

Just to clarify, I am talking about able-bodied individuals who are capable of working, not children and the disabled. Answer, please.

 

I think everyone would.

 

No, I never said that. There's no way to measure how people spend their money. Do they buy shoes and designer clothes? Do they spend it on lotto tickets or booze? Heck if I know. I am sure there are some people who are just stupid and waste their money on things.

But guess what, who cares. If they want to ruin their life that's their choice. It's such a small fraction of the people that it's not worth trying to police. The vast majority of people are using it to feed their kids which is the whole point. Last thing we need is to create more bureaucracy on a program that's working really well, and that will end up costing taxpayers more money.

As for people who have gone without work for years - it really depends. If they live in Appalachia where there is literally no jobs, what then? What are they suppose to do? Move? Maybe...but you can't just apply a single solution to everyone's situation. That's why the states have to adjust the qualifications based on the unique needs and issues of each area. It's not for the federal gov't to do that. Let the states handle it.

 

But is it not logical to assume that a person who has money to buy drugs but does not have extra money to buy food *would* have money to buy food if they didn't buy the drugs? Considering that most drugs cost more than basic foods?

And if they are, then why would we enable their stupidity with taxpayer money? Why should we not have them choose between drugs/shoes/whatever and food? Food is the most basic commodity one can buy. You are arguing that if someone is too stupid to buy that most basic commodity then we should oblige them and give them some extra money to buy food with.

Well hey, by that logic, why don't I just go buy a few more dozen guns? After all, you'll pay for my food, right?

I freaking care. That is TAXPAYER money. It doesn't fall from trees, as so many "liberals" seem to think. I want those who are entrusted with spending our money wisely to actually spend it wisely.

And you base that on what? You don't know how many people are scamming the system. It's almost certainly alot more than you think. How about we try and find out and actually combat it?

And what about those people who have kids but are using drugs? They choose drugs over their kids, and expect society to feed their kids. Same with those who refuse to get a job for years on end. They expect society to feed their kids.

I'd like to take those kids away from them and cut off benefits to the dirtbag, worthless excuse for a human being called a "parent", and give the kids to another family who will actually work to feed their kids. I think that's a better solution than aborting them, at least...

It doesn't "work really well", costs are spiraling, and the bureaucracy is bloating.

No, it doesn't. If they can't get a job where they live then they need to move. If they can't find a job that they want then they settle for what they need. There is NO excuse for going years without finding a job. ANYONE who is able-bodied and is interested in working can find a job. They might hate what they are doing but they will get a paycheck, and they can work their way up the ladder like everyone else has to do.

Stop making excuses for dead beats. That is EXACTLY what you are doing - making excuses for druggies and dead beats. With taxpayer money.

 

What exactly is your expertise in welfare metrics?

You want to "cut dead weight". Should we also cut those whose personal failings include being overweight, smoking cigarettes, or being able to afford alcohol?

What is your measure of "dead weight"? How much would it cost to cut your dead weight, versus the benefit? How many people on food stamps do you estimate are on drugs---keeping in mind about 85 percent are children, elderly, or disabled? What is the cost of drug testing everybody? Is the benefit of such testing worth it? Keep in mind that in Florida where mandatory drug testing is implemented for welfare recipients, only about 2% of applicants score positive, four times lower than the reported average of people who self-report using drugs in Florida. The state may actually lose money once you factor in the administration costs, and everything else that goes beyond reimbursing people for negative tests.

What is the point of increased work standards if there is scarcely any work to be had, for food stampers or non-food stampers alike?

Responsible governance as you are claiming, to me, seems to be you making a whole bunch of conjuncture and not thinking about any of the implications, but slashing whatever motivates you personally. That is the opposite of responsible. You never answered my second point, but why exactly is it a good idea to slash the safety net when many people need it, for reasons outside of their control (i.e Wall-Street driven recession with scarce employment, and stagnating wages)? Why exactly is it a good and responsible idea to slash a program that helps counter economic stagnation through stimulating the economy: perhaps because it gives resources to the people who are most in need (rather than passing off asset price increases to people who will just sit on the cash?).

 

Pretty much.

 

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, dude? I told you that it was a simple search. It took me about 2 minutes to find those posts. Two minutes. Not "craploads of time," but 2 minutes. And obviously you could care less that I was concerned about you. Fine. You're an *******. I get it. That's your new M.O. here. Treeman the *******. Should we all stand up and applaud? Honestly, is that how you think people should post around here? We should all be insulting assholes who could care less about how others think of them? You have some issues, man. Some serious issues.

**** you.

Where did I "personally attack you?" Can you even keep track of who you are responding to? Evidently not. You think you are being charming "tweaking" people here? You enjoy what you call "tweaking?" That's what you think you are doing? So you enjoy being an *******? That's a pity, because like Major pointed out, some of us who are liberal and/or progressive would like some conservatives in D&D who aren't simply here to troll. He mentioned a few. I don't know why you are here, but it certainly isn't to have a civil conversation.

You have no clue, man. No clue at all. I'm interested in intelligent discussion about the issues of the day, not in exchanging posts with someone so screwed up that they can't appreciate that there are people here who were glad that you returned. I was one of them. Now? You're just a pain in the arse, and that's a real pity.


Why don't you grow up. It's way past time.

 

I remember it a little differently, but it's within sigma, basically. He's more hard-headed than before, more sure that anyone with a different viewpoint is an "idiot", etc.

It's how most men age, I suppose. Meh. Boring, as Sherlock would say. That's why I've decided godzilla gifs are the best remedy for the thread.

 

Ok, so you want to monitor all their spending to make sure they don't spend it on drugs, lotto tickets, designer jeans, booze, right? Then you complain about bloat and spiraling costs. Then you ask for proof.

But you offer no proof that drugs are a problem here. That there is any bloat in SNAP. That costs are spiraling out of control. All three of your assertions have been countered in previous posts, with facts, and you still state these lies. Whats the point if you won't acknowledge the facts people are giving you - you are just wasting our time.

 

What's yours?

I know for sure that they absolutely cannot monitor every case for fraud - the caseloads are too massive. Just like most casework their QA will monitor a small fraction of them. And that's it.

Just wait until Obamacare really comes into full force. The government is going to have quite a bit of say in what you put into your body.

It's pretty simple and I thought I already made it clear.

1) choosing to purchase drugs over food = dead weight.

2) refusing to work or look for work for an extended period, including many applicants whose plan it is to get benefits indefinitely.

It's a goddamned safety net, it is not permanent welfare. Or at least, it's not supposed to be.

That is horsesh^t. There is PLENTY of work to be had, but many people don;t want to work the jobs that are available. And why work for your money when the state will just give you money?

Blah blah blah. Responsible government doesn't waste money on people who refuse to help themselves. The government is NOT a fu^king babysitter. It is NOT there to support you from cradle to grave. That is NOT its function. This nation is a democratic republic, and those representatives making our laws are there to represent us. If you think for a second that the large majority of the people of this nation are cool with paying for food for junkies and lazy-a$$ people who refuse to work, then you are *sorely mistaken*.

 

So Deckard, you you have anything relevant to say? Or are you just trying to get it all out of your system?

We were starting to get this conversation back on track. Do you have anything to contribute, or are you just going to run around pointing at your fake Civility Police badge saying "Look at me! I'm important!"?

I do find it fascinating how you can get so worked up over an anonymous message board, but really, I'd recommend taking a xanax and chilling for awhile.

 

Reading over this, I need to first sway your attention to the fact that the only refutations I see are purely based, once again, on emotion and want. There's nearly nothing about the practicalities of the whole affair. You failed to address both of the central points in my contention: the cost-benefit of drug tests, and the sheer economic and social irrationality of baring down on the safety net now that it is most needed.

You addressing my point of alcohol and ciggys went nowhere, but thanks for the smiley.

^That statement was either farce, or betrays a deep lack of understanding of the current economy.

As for my expertise in welfare economics, a job and a degree...so yeah.

 

Er, no, that would be impossible. I was mocking you. Did you not get that?

I was serious about that part. Do you disagree?

OK, you know I am going to come back to this next time you say that you never said drugs weren't a problem, right?

A program whose costs have grown by 70% in a 5 year span has no spiraling costs? Really??

No, they have been roundly ignored. And I gave you the goddamned facts. The fact is that the proposed cuts would bring spending from $80bn to $76bn. Go here and have a look at this chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SNAP_Benefits_Paid_2005-2012.png

Got that? In 2012 we paid about $76bn in SNAP benefits. This proposal would bring it back to $76bn. So you argument that cutting that $4bn is going to result in "millions of children" starving to death is absurd

Your facts are freaking lies. Look at that goddamned chart and come back here and tell me again how people are going to starve is we return to just above 2012 spending levels.

Don't you dare gripe at me about "facts" when you have presented absolutely none and refuse to acknowledge the actual facts.

 

2012 = 74bn

 

Nonsense. I have posted links to several sources now, and the question of whether giving benefits to druggies and those who refuse to work are relevant questions concerning how public money should be spent.

Well, we discussed that several pages ago. But OFD drug tests cost about $12 a pop, and if even a small fraction of recipients were tested then it could save potentially billions of dollars. You wouldn't need to test children or the disabled - they are covered regardless. Test the able-bodied and call it a day.

Oh, it's always "most needed" now, isn't it, liberal? We're in recovery, have been for years - unless you guys have been lying to us. And how is it that a couple of sentences ago you were fretting about my motivation being emotional, and yet here you are presenting this argument - in the same paragraph?

Alcohol has already been addressed. But it is part of the fraud aspect. I stood in line at Wallyworld once and watched as a woman with two shopping carts carefully unloaded her food in the first group on the conveyor, and paid for it with her Lone Star card. She then paid for 11 bottles of wine with her credit card. Is that not abuse?

If you can't get a job at McDonald's, Walmart, etc then you are unemployable and must be either physically/mentally disabled (in which case you're covered) or you're an unimaginably stupid mouthbreather who is stealing everyone else's oxygen. There is a job out there for anyone who wants one, thought they may not like it much.

Hey, I have a job and a degree, too. I'm an expert too!

 

I just want an apology. While you were gone, on several different occasions, I mentioned you and said you were missed as a conservative voice that wasn't here to troll, but rather in having good discussions, even if one disagreed with your positions. I said that I hoped you were OK during your deployment in Iraq. What's one of the first things you did when you came back? Accuse me of wishing you dead. If you don't consider that worthy of a sincere apology to someone who was in fact wishing you well in whatever you were doing, then it leaves me with nothing more to say than I have already, and that includes a hearty **** you. Give me that apology, and we're good. Don't, and you're joining my very short ignore list. Given how you've responded to being called out for such an incredibly unfair remark, it's obvious that you aren't the same treeman I recall from a decade ago. Perhaps my memory has failed me and you've always been this way. If so, my bad. Being on my ignore list would no doubt please you, so I don't expect one.

Your choice. Oh, and since I'm at least 20 years older than you, the juvenile insults are hilarious. Makes me feel like I'm back in junior high, what they call middle school today. Thanks for the "time travel."