Jump to content



Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

this country is so f*cked up its not even funny.


  • Please log in to reply
224 replies to this topic

#121 Rasen

Rasen

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 02:40 AM

point is  there are millions of people on food stamps that should never been allowed to be put on food stamps and now they think they deserve it.   If your really poor and need it  i  have no problem with those people getting it,  but those who use food stamps and then turn around and spend  20 to 50 bucks on beer or lottery tickets should be kicked off them. Or people who are on them and just keep having more  kids to get more cash  should be kicked off as well.  I remember one  person trying to pass a law.  If your getting food stamps or other  aid  and have another kid that  AMOUNT WILL NOT GO UP. It was their choice to have more kids when they could not afford the first one.

 

I'm curious, where do you get your "millions of people...that should never have been allowed to be put on food stamps"? You might be right, but I'd like to see your source.

 

While I agree that people who are on some form of aid should not be spending money on beer or lottery tickets, the problem comes from: how would you enforce that? It's not free, and it's probably a safe bet that it would cost more than you save by kicking out the "undeserving," especially if you start to factor in legal costs from people who argue that it was "a one time thing" or "their right to drink whatever they want to."

 

Lastly, I bet that law didn't pass. No surprises there, because of the nature of this country. It would not be a popular move to say "if you have another child, we're not going to pay to support it. Just let it starve. Or put it into an orphanage. Everyone knows those are such WONDERFUL places."



#122 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 26 September 2013 - 02:50 AM

One thing that I'd like to see done is a complete revamp of the SNAP system to be more like WIC. Instead of getting $X to spend on groceries, you get vouchers for specific items. This would cut off things like soda, sugary cereals, snack cakes, etc. You get milk, bread, fresh veggies, etc.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#123 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 03:11 AM

Insulting you is different from insulting your family. It says more about you than it does me. Oh, and you're closer to an EMT rather than a clinical psychiatrist/psychologist muchless a social worker.

If you want to talk about fitness, there's a thread for that. You'd know about it if you wandered out of vs.
 
Trolls be trollin. mr.underoos is just trying to call me a bitch and thinks he's being clever.

You do sound like one. Always complaining. 



#124 Rasen

Rasen

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 03:48 AM

One thing that I'd like to see done is a complete revamp of the SNAP system to be more like WIC. Instead of getting $X to spend on groceries, you get vouchers for specific items. This would cut off things like soda, sugary cereals, snack cakes, etc. You get milk, bread, fresh veggies, etc.

 

Just my 2 cents:

 

I can see the appeal of trying to get people to behave better or more wisely. But here's the economics take on it. 

 

Economic theory believes individuals knows what they need better (or want more) than the government does. For instance, if we were dealing with a particularly scrupulous person, he might choose to eat smaller portions of milk, bread, etc...and put some of that money aside for rent or bills. Or what if the person is a vegetarian, but has stamps for meat?

 

Of course, then the question is raised: "what if they blow it all on alcohol?" To which, economists say: "So what? If that person has chosen to value alcohol over a balanced diet or a home, that is what makes them happier." They then go one step further to say that the person might even work out an exchange with other people. (Perhaps he sells his milk stamps to a family with more kids, so that he can buy alcohol.)



#125 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 26 September 2013 - 04:36 AM

It's not so much making people behave more wisely. It's not wasting taxpayer funds on Pepsi and Sugar Smacks.

In your first example, the current system does not apply to that either, as you cannot (legally) pay for rent or bills with SNAP Benefits. For the second, I'd say there should be an option for folks receiving benefits to pick the food plan that is right for them. Example, if I'm lactose intolorant, don't give me vouchers for cheese and milk. :D

As for folks working out exchanges... they already do that. It's pretty common for folks to trade/sell SNAP benefits for other goods and services. I've even heard of some small, mom and pop grocery stores that will pay cash for SNAP (Customer comes in and "spends" $25 on "SNAP eligible items" and is given $20 from the owner of the store). Cases of abuse should be punished. Harshly. Abuse is a major reason why the system is spread so thin as it is.

However, more to the point, it's a lot easier to give someone $30 worth of SNAP Eligible food items than it is to give them specific items. Think of it in terms of video games. If I offered you a $100 GameStop gift card for $75, you'd probably take me up on it. Sure, you can't get *anything* you want, but you can probably find something at GameStop to spend $100 on, and you just saved 25%.

But, if I offered you two specific $60 games - say, Madden 2014 and FIFA 2014 for PS3 - for $75... technically a better deal... but do you even own a PS3? Do you really want two sports games?

Same concept here. People are scamming the system anyway, so that's not really a reason to *not* change it.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#126 Rasen

Rasen

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 05:16 AM

Ok, fair enough about the legality question. 

 

I can't speak to the "Mom and Pop exchange abuse" example, because I'm still not sure how that works, but what strikes you as so wrong about selling certain food stamp benefits to those that want them? Like you said, if you're lactose intolerant, why not sell that benefit to someone who needs milk, instead of just letting it go to waste? The burden to the government is exactly the same, and both the seller and the buyer are better off.

 

To the next point about $30 of benefits versus food stamps, that's exactly the point. And it becomes even easier (and better) to just give the person $30 cash. 



#127 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 12:57 PM

It's not so much making people behave more wisely. It's not wasting taxpayer funds on Pepsi and Sugar Smacks.

In your first example, the current system does not apply to that either, as you cannot (legally) pay for rent or bills with SNAP Benefits. For the second, I'd say there should be an option for folks receiving benefits to pick the food plan that is right for them. Example, if I'm lactose intolorant, don't give me vouchers for cheese and milk. :D

As for folks working out exchanges... they already do that. It's pretty common for folks to trade/sell SNAP benefits for other goods and services. I've even heard of some small, mom and pop grocery stores that will pay cash for SNAP (Customer comes in and "spends" $25 on "SNAP eligible items" and is given $20 from the owner of the store). Cases of abuse should be punished. Harshly. Abuse is a major reason why the system is spread so thin as it is.

However, more to the point, it's a lot easier to give someone $30 worth of SNAP Eligible food items than it is to give them specific items. Think of it in terms of video games. If I offered you a $100 GameStop gift card for $75, you'd probably take me up on it. Sure, you can't get *anything* you want, but you can probably find something at GameStop to spend $100 on, and you just saved 25%.

But, if I offered you two specific $60 games - say, Madden 2014 and FIFA 2014 for PS3 - for $75... technically a better deal... but do you even own a PS3? Do you really want two sports games?

Same concept here. People are scamming the system anyway, so that's not really a reason to *not* change it.

Wat?

 

How much abuse is there? Do you think that the cost of administering this drastic overhaul will actually save taxpayer money?

 

I thought the decrease in SNAP was due to the sequester and in the expiring stimulus in November. There's also the House which is trying to make drastic cuts to the program.


PaulManda.png


#128 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:10 PM

In the case of the scam - the owner of the store rings up the customer for, say, $25 worth of merchandise and scans the customer's EBT card, getting paid $25 from the government. Then, instead of actually taking $25 worth of merchandise, the owner just gives the customer $20 in cash. Owner gets $25 from the government, individual gets $20 cash and no food is ever exchanged.

As for the idea of selling WIC-like Vouchers - if an individual "needs" milk, they can go out and pay for it. If they can't afford it, they should apply for assistance and use their own vouchers. If the individual who doesn't need the milk doesn't need it, then the government should be able to redistribute those funds to individuals are families that have qualified.

Think of it this way - if there's 100 people who are lactose intolerant. They sell their Milk Voucher to people who *could* afford milk, but hey, cheap milk. On the other hand, if the government retained those vouchers (or the value of them, if they went unredeemed) then the government would be able to give out 100 more gallons of milk next time around to qualified individuals/families who actually need and cannot afford milk.

Scamming the system hurts those who need the system the most.

Sure, it's "easier" to just give them $30 in food stamps. But I don't agree with the "better". If we went to a voucher-based system, there is a couple of things at play. First, for the individuals, it wouldn't matter as much *where* they lived. A voucher for a gallon of milk gets you a gallon of milk. Period. However, $1.59 worth of credit on your EBT card might get a gallon of milk one place, but would be no where near enough to get a gallon of milk elsewhere.

Second, you'd (ideally) get someone with more education in the nutritional department helping to make the decisions on what's healthy and what isn't. One of the biggest hurdles we hear all the time is that the underclass isn't educated enough to know what healthy eating is. If they don't have a choice to purchase Sugar Smacks over Oatmeal, then you're at least *helping* them to be healthy.

Third, as mentioned, it's harder to resell a specific item than it is general credit, which will help to cut down on fraud in the system (which will help the good that the welfare system can do).

Fourth, it would help, however slightly, increase the general public's perception of the program. See this very thread, where folks complain about the types of foods people use their EBT credit to purchase. Some folks (myself included) don't mind helping poor folks out. But we don't like buying them cases of soda. If I knew the money was being used to make better dietary decisions, I'd be a little less negative about the entire system.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#129 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:15 PM

Wat?

How much abuse is there? Do you think that the cost of administering this drastic overhaul will actually save taxpayer money?


I'd say there's enough abuse in the system that it negatively affects folks who actually need help from the system. How much abuse in the system are you okay with?

As for the "drastic overhaul" the system is already in place. The federal government has the WIC Voucher program in place, which providers vouchers to "Women, Infants and Children" for specific food items based on their individual dietary needs.

Granted, it would take a decent-sized initial investment to move such a large amount of folks from SNAP to a WIC-like program, but it's not as if we don't already have the infrastructure in place to do it.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#130 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:36 PM

I'd say there's enough abuse in the system that it negatively affects folks who actually need help from the system. How much abuse in the system are you okay with?

As for the "drastic overhaul" the system is already in place. The federal government has the WIC Voucher program in place, which providers vouchers to "Women, Infants and Children" for specific food items based on their individual dietary needs.

Granted, it would take a decent-sized initial investment to move such a large amount of folks from SNAP to a WIC-like program, but it's not as if we don't already have the infrastructure in place to do it.

 

So you don't know how much abuse there is. It's about 1%.

 

WIC is not a better alternative IMO. You work in Wal-Mart don't you? I worked in grocery stores as a kid and WIC checks were a pain for everyone. The items had to be in a separate order, you couldn't scan a gallon of 2% if you had a whole milk voucher, some brands were not approved. It adds needless stress and embarrassment for the recipients. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the program, I just think it's inferior to a cash card for food stores.

 

If you know anything about the government (state or federal), it's that any small change will require a ton of money and time. It doesn't matter how simple the change is.


PaulManda.png


#131 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:38 PM

Bob once again comes in and actually offers up a solution versus just arguing. Thanks. :bow:  The voucher program is a more thought out approach than my "give em a 10lb bag of rice" comment, but basically along the same lines that I was thinking. Not only does it educate on nutrition, but builds goodwill among taxpayers. Healthier welfare recipients who might just be stimulated by the change. "I'm tired of not being able to eat what I want. Perhaps i should better my position in life so that I can become a productive member of society and actually take care of myself like a responsible adult." ;) It might actually save us money on healthcare costs as well, in the long run. It might be difficult to choose who's dietary plan to build the vouchers around. Corporate cronyism would be fighting hard to get that guaranteed gov't money by having their product included. Maybe disallow refined flour, hi fructose corn syrup, etc.



#132 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:41 PM

So you don't know how much abuse there is. It's about 1%.

 

WIC is not a better alternative IMO. You work in Wal-Mart don't you? I worked in grocery stores as a kid and WIC checks were a pain for everyone. The items had to be in a separate order, you couldn't scan a gallon of 2% if you had a whole milk voucher, some brands were not approved. It adds needless stress and embarrassment for the recipients. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the program, I just think it's inferior to a cash card for food stores.

 

If you know anything about the government (state or federal), it's that any small change will require a ton of money and time. It doesn't matter how simple the change is.

I classify abuse of the system as a systemic cycle of generations living off of it and reproducing in a never ending chain of mooching. I can take you to multiple city blocks of gov't housing filled to the brim with people committing this form of abuse. I guarantee that it is waaayyy more than 1%.

 

I agree with you about costs, but do you support Obamacare? The CBO has some startling info about its actual costs. Should we still do it?



#133 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:43 PM

Bob once again comes in and actually offers up a solution versus just arguing. Thanks. :bow:  The voucher program is a more thought out approach than my "give em a 10lb bag of rice" comment, but basically along the same lines that I was thinking. Not only does it educate on nutrition, but builds goodwill among taxpayers. Healthier welfare recipients who might just be stimulated by the change. "I'm tired of not being able to eat what I want. Perhaps i should better my position in life so that I can become a productive member of society and actually take care of myself like a responsible adult." ;) It might actually save us money on healthcare costs as well, in the long run. It might be difficult to choose who's dietary plan to build the vouchers around. Corporate cronyism would be fighting hard to get that guaranteed gov't money by having their product included. Maybe disallow refined flour, hi fructose corn syrup, etc.

 

But mah freedums!

 

Seriously I am all for limiting sugar and crappy ingredients in food. I think these regulations should affect the producers, not the consumers.

 

 

 

I classify abuse of the system as a systemic cycle of generations living off of it and reproducing in a never ending chain of mooching. I can take you to multiple city blocks of gov't housing filled to the brim with people committing this form of abuse. I guarantee that it is waaayyy more than 1%.

 

I agree with you about costs, but do you support Obamacare? The CBO has some startling info about its actual costs. Should we still do it?

 

You sound like an authoritarian. I thought you were for a small government.


PaulManda.png


#134 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:43 PM

You do sound like one. Always complaining.

LOLZ...nothing passive aggressive here! :rofl:

Keep on keeping on with those underoos little buddy.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#135 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:47 PM

So you don't know how much abuse there is. It's about 1%.


How many politicians have ever taken a bribe?

You don't know. Because folks who partake in illegal activities are not prone to advertising the fact that they do it.

Let me rephrase my earlier question - how many people in need are you okay being denied benefits because the system can't afford to help them because even 1% of folks are abusing the system?

WIC is not a better alternative IMO. You work in Wal-Mart don't you? I worked in grocery stores as a kid and WIC checks were a pain for everyone. The items had to be in a separate order, you couldn't scan a gallon of 2% if you had a whole milk voucher, some brands were not approved. It adds needless stress and embarrassment for the recipients. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the program, I just think it's inferior to a cash card for food stores.


The "separate order" thing is something that could use some addressing.

The "no 2%" thing is kinda the whole point of the entire program. You get the healthy, most nutritional option for your dietary needs.

Not worried about "stress and embarrassment". Your hurt feelings are not my concern.

And stores, while not huge fans of WIC, sure don't mind jumping through the required hoops to get approved to accept the vouchers at their locations. That says something.

There's an additional bonus. If the millions of folks on SNAP suddenly had to stop buying the sugary cereals and go for the healthy alternatives, what do you think the grocery stores (and the cereal manufacturers) are going to start doing? Making/Stocking the healthier product - in larger quantities. Sure, there's always going to be a market for m'Lucky Charms, but if stores were given this huge incentive to start stocking a more healthy selection of product, it would be a win even for folks who don't receive benefits.

If you know anything about the government (state or federal), it's that any small change will require a ton of money and time. It doesn't matter how simple the change is.

Well then, we should never change anything ever, right?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#136 slidecage

slidecage

    Nothing to say

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:49 PM

I'm curious, where do you get your "millions of people...that should never have been allowed to be put on food stamps"? You might be right, but I'd like to see your source.

 

While I agree that people who are on some form of aid should not be spending money on beer or lottery tickets, the problem comes from: how would you enforce that? It's not free, and it's probably a safe bet that it would cost more than you save by kicking out the "undeserving," especially if you start to factor in legal costs from people who argue that it was "a one time thing" or "their right to drink whatever they want to."

 

Lastly, I bet that law didn't pass. No surprises there, because of the nature of this country. It would not be a popular move to say "if you have another child, we're not going to pay to support it. Just let it starve. Or put it into an orphanage. Everyone knows those are such WONDERFUL places."

look at the number over the last  3 years and look how it  went up  big time. Hell some states were even putting ads in the paper. COME ON DOWN AND SIGN UP FOR FOOD STAMPS.  Sorry but if you need food stamps you dont need an ad  telling you to come down and claim them.

 

and to unclebob     they might be doing that .  I was in  meijer the other say and this person was on food stamps or something cause they had to use  CHECKS?  to pay for different items    IT would not allow  some foods to  check out  when they were scanning them

 

dont even get me started on obamacare again.  Im sick of people on tv  holding signs saying   WE DESERVE HEALTHCARE  and obamacare gave it to me.   Yea you might of got it but it cost  millions of others theirs. I know for the first time come  Jan  there is a 90% chance  I wont have health care  cause   my bill went up  too much.  So  someone who is too lazy to work get its   while  i was working for the past  15 years paying every year now lose it cause i  CANT AFFORD to pay for it cause i  have to pay for  MINE AND THEIRS . 

 

 

I also love to see how many people who  want obamacare   are PAYING FOR IT. There was a few people on tv last night   protesting  for it and they go, How much are you paying for your health insurance. The person looks back and goes  o    cause of  obamacare i now get  medicaid.  Of course your going to be  for something that gives you something for  FREE and that is what the bullcrap is    99.9% of the people for it  get it for FREE 


WOOOO I STINK

#137 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:51 PM

But mah freedums!

Seriously I am all for limiting sugar and crappy ingredients in food. I think these regulations should affect the producers, not the consumers.


Although you were sarcastic, you first complain about freedom, then offer a solution that 100% takes the choice out of the people's hands.

As ego said, a voucher system would give the manufacturers an incentive to get their food included in the program, which would encourage them to make healthier foods that *everyone* would be able to purchase since every store would stock them (and in ample supply!) - all without trampling all over mah freedums.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#138 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:52 PM

and to unclebob     they might be doing that .  I was in  meijer the other say and this person was on food stamps or something cause they had to use  CHECKS?  to pay for different items    IT would not allow  some foods to  check out  when they were scanning them


Sounds like WIC. Seriously, it's a pretty spiffy program. Look it up.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#139 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:54 PM

I classify abuse of the system as a systemic cycle of generations living off of it and reproducing in a never ending chain of mooching. I can take you to multiple city blocks of gov't housing filled to the brim with people committing this form of abuse. I guarantee that it is waaayyy more than 1%.
 
I agree with you about costs, but do you support Obamacare? The CBO has some startling info about its actual costs. Should we still do it?

Is it abuse when someone is sleeping on the job? Cause you...you know...let's expand that definition to be as broad as possible since you're already halfway there.

Btw, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone here that are for subsidies for highly processed foods with crap like high fructose corn syrup.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#140 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 02:01 PM

But mah freedums!

 

Seriously I am all for limiting sugar and crappy ingredients in food. I think these regulations should affect the producers, not the consumers.

 

 

 

 

You sound like an authoritarian. I thought you were for a small government.

I totally am for smaller gov't and individual freedom, but, if you have proven that you can't handle your life like a responsible adult and want the taxpayers to take care of you, then you should be treated like a child and have decisions made for you. It is a voluntary program. Surrender some freedom to have your lazy ass taken care of. Doing what you want and having other people pay for it is a recipe for disaster.



#141 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 02:06 PM

How many politicians have ever taken a bribe?

You don't know. Because folks who partake in illegal activities are not prone to advertising the fact that they do it.

Let me rephrase my earlier question - how many people in need are you okay being denied benefits because the system can't afford to help them because even 1% of folks are abusing the system?


The "separate order" thing is something that could use some addressing.

The "no 2%" thing is kinda the whole point of the entire program. You get the healthy, most nutritional option for your dietary needs.

Not worried about "stress and embarrassment". Your hurt feelings are not my concern.

And stores, while not huge fans of WIC, sure don't mind jumping through the required hoops to get approved to accept the vouchers at their locations. That says something.

There's an additional bonus. If the millions of folks on SNAP suddenly had to stop buying the sugary cereals and go for the healthy alternatives, what do you think the grocery stores (and the cereal manufacturers) are going to start doing? Making/Stocking the healthier product - in larger quantities. Sure, there's always going to be a market for m'Lucky Charms, but if stores were given this huge incentive to start stocking a more healthy selection of product, it would be a win even for folks who don't receive benefits.

Well then, we should never change anything ever, right?

 

Your first question is a misdirect. You are saying that if any abuse occurs (even 1%), it must be reformed? No system will be perfect.

 

You show a lot of disdain for the poor with your comments. I don't think their lives need to be more difficult, you don't care. Takes all kinds.

 

We need to increase the accessibility of healthy food before we force people to buy it. Nice small government mindset you have there BTW.

 

I don't think cost is a reason to freak out about helping people. You are the one who cares so much about saving taxpayer money with regard to food stamps.

 

Although you were sarcastic, you first complain about freedom, then offer a solution that 100% takes the choice out of the people's hands.

As ego said, a voucher system would give the manufacturers an incentive to get their food included in the program, which would encourage them to make healthier foods that *everyone* would be able to purchase since every store would stock them (and in ample supply!) - all without trampling all over mah freedums.

 

I want people to eat healthier. I wish we everyone could eat a simple, healthy diet. I am not a small government conservative. Actually, you are presuming my regulatory solution would take choice out of people's hands. I would prefer that all ingredients were required on all foods (including processing agents, trade secrets etc.). I would also like to subsidize small and organic farmers who use sustainable practices. I get that my solutions might not be practical in the short term, so I'm open to hearing from experts. None of my policies would eliminate the choices of consumers


PaulManda.png


#142 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 02:07 PM

Is it abuse when someone is sleeping on the job? Cause you...you know...let's expand that definition to be as broad as possible since you're already halfway there.

Btw, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone here that are for subsidies for highly processed foods with crap like high fructose corn syrup.

Hhehehehehh...I was waiting for you to chime in with this. Sleeping on the job that requires you to be there for 24 hours and ready to respond and make life and death decisions at a moments notice, while sometimes being so busy that you get no sleep during that period, is totally comparable to generational welfare abuse. :roll: For once, please stop the personal attacks and make an argument based on the topic. Or don't. Deflection and redirection are the last bastions of a losing side in an argument.

 

You still have not shared your occupation with me. :wave: I promise I won't make any personal attacks on you because of it.



#143 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 02:11 PM

"You show a lot of disdain for the poor with your comments. I don't think their lives need to be more difficult, you don't care. Takes all kinds."

 

Disdain? Because I want people who are living off of other people's money to feel some shame or guilt about it? Humans are driven by incentives. If a little bit of shame is the incentive that motivates a mooch to better their life, then so be it.



#144 Rasen

Rasen

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 02:20 PM

UncleBob: Ok, I’m going to try to address your points individually, because there are so many:

 

Re: paragraph 1: Regarding the scam, that’s pretty interesting. However, again I ask: who is getting hurt by this? The burden on the taxpayer and the government remains the same. To take your example, the customer showed $20 of cash over $25 of support for. In other words, they’re $5 poorer than they would have been if you just gave them $25 instead. To look at it from a cost-benefit side, that means the government spent $25 to give someone $20, wasting $5. And so long as people feel they want to spend on what they want/need instead of what the government designates, this waste of funds will continue to happen.

 

Re: paragraph 2-4: I wasn’t talking about selling to people who can afford it, but rather the best-case scenario of two people who are receiving aid, but have stamps for items they can’t use. If they are not allowed to exchange, then they’re made worse off. Let’s say the goal of these programs is to give everyone a healthy, balanced diet over the course of a month, so you designate a specific set of food for them to eat. Obviously, you would try to avoid giving them too much benefits, or else you reduce the incentive to find a job. Now, let’s say the person finds out they’re lactose intolerant, a vegetarian, or Jewish. If they’re forbidden from making exchanges, then they are forced onto a nutrient-deficient diet for a month.  Instead of hurting possible future people, it’s hurting people now.

 

Re: paragraph 5: Differences in prices don’t usually happen like that, or else people would take advantage of it and make money from it. Assuming $1.59 gets you a gallon of milk in town A, but $3.18 per gallon in town B. Assume the milk is of similar quality (and not of some hoity-toity Whole Foods organic). Then someone will just buy up 100 gallons of milk in town A for $159, drive to town B, and sell for $318.

 

Re: paragraph 6: People have argued long and hard about how it is their freedom to be as unhealthy as they want. Whether or not it is actually their freedom to do so while living off welfare, the point is they will find ways to do it.

 

Re: paragraph 7: And that difficulty also means that when they resell, they end up accepting a cheaper price. See my response to paragraph 1 about how that means wasted money, and my response to paragraph 6 about why they will continue to do it.

 

Re: last paragraph: Ok, I can’t speak to the general public perception. While you may be right, here’s the devil’s advocate’s interpretation: It’s making them healthier, so they’ll live longer and have better lives.  For people who view them as “moochers with no incentive to get off the public dole,” this means they’ll live longer on the public dole. Whereas previously they might put themselves in a sugary grave after 20 years on welfare, now they’ll do it after 60 years. Yeah, that’s a particularly negative view of people, but the fact is that welfare programs reduce the incentive to find work. By how much, depends on how much benefits they receive. (At $0, you either find a job or starve. At $100,000, you’ll never work a day in your life)



#145 Rasen

Rasen

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 02:39 PM

Slidecage: Ok, that's a fair point. I recall an argument against it, but I can't remember it right now so I'll concede the point.

 

Next, how much do you think your insurance will go up? Or did it? Because I'm pretty sure nothing has even taken effect yet, until October 1st.

 

Regarding the cost of the Obamacare premiums, the Obama administration projects it at $328 per month for a mid-level plan. I am hesitant to believe that, as the administration has every reason act optimistically. However, the Congressional Budget Office projects the mid-level at $390. Again, that's for a mid-level plan, so conceivably people can also find a lower-level plan with a higher deductible. 

 

Your example of Medicaid is a poor one, because Obamacare hasn't done anything to it yet. The expanded coverage will occur next year, and states have the option to stick with the current levels of funding and eligibility.

 

And while you say people get it for free, even the poor pay taxes. Here's an article from Forbes, which I consider a right-leaning magazine since it ran stories called "beware who might tell on you cheating on your taxes." I figure if a right-leaning publication is going to say that the poor also pay taxes, it MUST be true, because a left-leaning publication would claim they pay even more.

 

http://www.forbes.co...uding-the-poor/



#146 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 02:47 PM

Hhehehehehh...I was waiting for you to chime in with this. Sleeping on the job that requires you to be there for 24 hours and ready to respond and make life and death decisions at a moments notice, while sometimes being so busy that you get no sleep during that period, is totally comparable to generational welfare abuse. :roll: For once, please stop the personal attacks and make an argument based on the topic. Or don't. Deflection and redirection are the last bastions of a losing side in an argument.

If you're sleeping on the job, you're not being productive, hence: waste. One might even call it theft if one were so inclined.

Again, you're the one that wants to expand upon the definition of what qualifies as abuse, so explain why the Fuck I can't expand it to public employees sleeping on the job? Oh right! It's because YOU do it. :roll:
 

You still have not shared your occupation with me. :wave: I promise I won't make any personal attacks on you because of it.

Took me less than a minute to find out what I do. Considering the clues I've already given to actually find it, taking a minute is already 30 seconds too much. If you can find links on theblaze, you can find out what I do for a living. Typical libertarian bitching about people being too lazy to work and does none of it on their own. Color me surprised. <-Now THAT was an attack; not asking if sleeping on the job is abuse.

And underoos.jr calls ME a bitch. :rofl:
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#147 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 06:10 PM

LOLZ...nothing passive aggressive here! :rofl:

Keep on keeping on with those underoos little buddy.

What can I say? Your ignorance upsets me. 



#148 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 08:07 PM

What can I say? Your ignorance upsets me.

Says the guy that went on long diatribes, revealed that they knew almost nothing about the issue, and then went on even longer rants about how they're right while still knowing next to nothing about it.

Can't make this stuff up folks... :rofl:
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#149 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 September 2013 - 10:53 PM

Says the guy that went on long diatribes, revealed that they knew almost nothing about the issue, and then went on even longer rants about how they're right while still knowing next to nothing about it.

Can't make this stuff up folks... :rofl:

You mean the time when I would back every claim up with an external source while you just talked out of your ass? Yep I remember that. 



#150 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:49 AM

You mean the time when I would back every claim up with an external source while you just talked out of your ass? Yep I remember that.

Oh you mean those sources that only espouse conservative views? :rofl:

If you had an iota of intellectual honesty, you'd realize that jumping face first into an abyss of conservative ideology is the action of an uncritical thinker. You're an ideologue. There is absolutely no evidence that would ever change your mind, so explain to me why in the hell I should go through the effort of writing an essay with citations when you're not even versed or care to be well versed in the issues to begin with?

Do you think that the Daily Mail, Huffington Post,and DailyKos are legitimate sources of unbiased information? Would you accept them as unbiased factual analyses? Of course you wouldn't, so why should I accept your sources? Do you believe in vampires because a book called Twilight says that they exist? You're such a joke, dude. Make sure you talk about praxeology when you go back to school. Good luck and the last word is yours cause I'm going to marathon Real Time. :rofl:
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!