Will they starve the poor, needy, disabled? Or keep drug dealers, lazy addicts, and hookers from getting free food?

9/12/2013 12:41:15 PM

the fewer people i see with iphones using foodstamps the happier I'll be, however it will fuck over a lot of honest people who are atleast trying.

9/12/2013 12:46:23 PM

Oh look someone else is watching MSNBC while eating lunch.

15% of this country being hungry or suffering from "food insecurity" is pretty shameful though.

9/12/2013 12:48:50 PM

I was watching the thing about Florida Pain Clinics last night and the cops were watching a pill dealer and a car full of addicts. They were going to all the pain clinics in town trying to get prescriptions while crushing one up to snort at each stop. The main guy had $1600 in cash on him, was so high he could hardly stand, and a food stamp card.

I think most Americans would agree that they really don't care if that guy is going hungry.

9/12/2013 1:01:01 PM

Thats just the thing.

Most Americans dont want people to starve just because.

Most Americans dont care if ^that piece of shit does.

Most problems with American welfare programs have enough money (and I personally wouldnt mind giving them more if needed), but the money needs to be better distributed to those with real needs by taking it away from ^shitheads.

People like that, or the shitty neighbor we all have, or the family member or lies/cheats/whatever to get government benefits... They all provide fodder for those who want these programs stripped completely. How about policing them instead of simply busing them to the polls to vote Democrat?

Its a shame that politics is just slash and burn these days. Its far easier to completely destroy a program than it is to fix it.

9/12/2013 1:09:43 PM

It's far easier to talk about fixing a program than it is to actually do it.

9/12/2013 1:17:11 PM

I honestly don't care about what life priorities the people receiving aid are making. On an economic basis, it would be possible to keep someone drugged out perpetually at a fraction of the cost of rent. Their choices aren't surprising.

I just don't want them to have any incentive to have kids.

9/12/2013 3:41:21 PM

So you are saying people on food stamps should be sterilized?

9/12/2013 4:59:28 PM

They could volunteer then we could give them even sweeter perks.

9/12/2013 8:07:26 PM

Quote :

"the fewer people i see with iphones using foodstamps the happier I'll be, however it will fuck over a lot of honest people who are atleast trying."

I don't know if there's anything to it and I'm not taking a stance on foodstamps here, but I've heard at least anecdotally that those around the poverty line will sometimes use phones to try to bridge the digital divide when a home computer is unaffordable. I know I have found internet access, e-mail access, and even texting pretty important in either the process of applying for or performing job duties.

http://chittisterchildren.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/i-was-on-food-stamps-and-i-have-an-iphone/

Quote :

"There are so many reasons why a person may use Food Stamps, yet have a nice phone. When I was in NH, I had a friend who worked at one of those cell phone kiosks in the mall. She worked on commission, so she was sometimes late on rent, but she always had the latest, greatest phone. She got it for free. I’m sure there are several people who have jobs that give them nice phones, but not enough pay to actually live on. A phone can be a gift, as Max’s new phone was from his parents this Christmas. His 2010 Blackberry no longer had a functioning keyboard. A phone can cost 1 penny if you sign up for a new service contract. Over the summer, Max’s contract lapsed and AT&T offered the iPhone 4S for 1 penny. We tried to add him on to my contract because it would have been cheaper, but AT&T Wireless sucks and we couldn’t. Battered womens’ shelters and homeless shelters often give out phones. I don’t doubt that some companies donate like-new or refurbished phones for the tax write-off. Most logically, when the person bought the phone, they didn’t know they’d be reliant on Food Stamps a short time later."

[Edited on September 12, 2013 at 9:39 PM. Reason : .]

9/12/2013 9:39:08 PM

What has logic ever done for anyone?

9/12/2013 10:49:54 PM

I know somebody whose internet and cable are cut off for non payment, they are dead ass broke, and they have a iPhone 4... so yeah a phone with a data plan is a lot cheaper and more of a necessity than home cable/internet.

She is also using her iPhone to get email responses about available work.

9/12/2013 10:57:57 PM

Quote :

"They could volunteer then we could give them even sweeter perks."

Incentivized sterilization is actually a great idea that would do a lot of good things for our society, but it won't ever get any traction because people will accuse it of being a racist, Nazi-esque, etc.

I'm very much in favor of eliminating food stamps. I'd prefer, since we apparently have to have some kind of "social safety net" some kind of negative income tax. Couple that with temporary, optional, incentivized sterilization and you might see a break in the cycle of poverty (and all the accompanying ills).

9/12/2013 11:30:59 PM

Quote :

"people will accuse it of being a racist, Nazi-esque, etc."

because it is: you're saying that certain people are of no value whatsoever and somehow their kids will be worthless too because "poor people lol"

Anyway, SNAP recipients are not statistically more likely to be drug-users than the general population, and if you don't work (that is, legit work) and aren't elderly or disabled, you can only get benefits for like 3 months every few years.

Also, unless some new legislation was just enacted, all that's happening is the end of the stimulus-era boost in benefits and a return to a formula based on the Thrifty Food Plan; as an example, the maximum monthly benefit for an individual in the continental US will fall from $200 to $189 (that is, by 5.5%): http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1269

However, what the Rethugs want to do is "curb waste and abuse" by cutting more from this and several other food programs, even though SNAP already has a low and declining fraud rate (mainly the result of nationwide adoption of EBT limiting opportunities for "conversion"), and even though simply cutting funding for a program isn't as precise as cutting the crust off the bread and does nothing to limit waste and abuse as a portion of program spending: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-12/house-republicans-seek-40-billion-in-cuts-to-food-aid-programs.html

9/13/2013 12:38:04 AM

Quote :

"because it is: you're saying that certain people are of no value whatsoever and somehow their kids will be worthless too because "poor people lol""

No, I'm saying perhaps we shouldn't reward people for poor choices and instead make it advantageous to put off having children until they can afford to properly care and raise said children.

9/13/2013 12:52:23 AM

sterilization means putting off having children forever

also being poor is not often the result of having made poor choices (although the converse statement, that poor choices often lead to being poor, is true)

9/13/2013 1:22:29 AM

It's like you didn't even read what I proposed. There are ways to temporarily sterilize people. Maybe the term long term BC would be more clear.

Although, just to be clear, I'm not against incentivizing permanent sterilization either.



[Edited on September 13, 2013 at 2:36 AM. Reason : sdfsdf]

9/13/2013 2:26:50 AM

Quote :

"So you are saying people on food stamps should be sterilized?"

And you're in favor of using the state's resources to encourage child neglect?

9/13/2013 7:19:52 AM

wat?

9/13/2013 8:52:49 AM

as it currently stands, there is a strong financial incentive to have children if you are very poor (not just because of SNAP)

9/13/2013 8:54:56 AM

I don't know what you people are smoking. There's no way in fuck anyone is going to profit from having children. They may be compensated more than if they didn't have any but there is absolutely no way anyone is going to come out on top financially, not even counting the man hours of effort it takes raising children (even raising them badly).

Poor people have more babies because they don't use birth control to the same degree as rich people, not because they're trying to game the system. I'm sure you can find examples of really stupid people trying it but to think it's the norm is absurd.

9/13/2013 9:00:34 AM

^^^ My hyperbole was actually less ridiculous than Str8BacardiL's original retort. That's why I said it.

[Edited on September 13, 2013 at 9:02 AM. Reason : ^]

9/13/2013 9:02:04 AM

^^ no, it's really a problem

9/13/2013 9:03:44 AM

What would be the incentive to get sterilized?

9/13/2013 9:04:11 AM

Cash would probably be the easiest thing, either through direct payment or through a significant tax credit.

Quote :

"I don't know what you people are smoking. There's no way in fuck anyone is going to profit from having children. They may be compensated more than if they didn't have any but there is absolutely no way anyone is going to come out on top financially, not even counting the man hours of effort it takes raising children (even raising them badly)."

Seriously? Having a child or multiple children allows people who are in dire straits to gain access to many, many, many additional programs. I'm not saying that they're growing wealthy, but there are certainly financial incentives to have children when you're on the extreme low end of the economic spectrum.

From a cost/benefit standpoint we would be better off as a society if we could make it to their benefit not to have said children.

[Edited on September 13, 2013 at 9:13 AM. Reason : sdfsd]

9/13/2013 9:09:14 AM

the easiest way for a poor women to get access to healthcare is to get pregnant

9/13/2013 9:30:49 AM

You and I have vastly different definitions of the word 'easiest.' To clarify, specify some other ways poor women can get healthcare and we'll compare them to the life-draining hole that being pregnant, birthing, and raising children is.

[Edited on September 13, 2013 at 9:42 AM. Reason : .]

9/13/2013 9:40:56 AM

raising a kid is not hard and not that expensive if you don't give a shit about it

but here you go:
http://www.ncdhhs.gov/dma/medicaid/Medicaid_eligibility_0713.pdf

pregnant women are covered for pregnancy related issues up to 185% of the poverty line, for women with children under 6 eligibility is for anyone up to 200% of poverty line. There is also no resource limit for pregnant women or women with children.

[Edited on September 13, 2013 at 10:02 AM. Reason : and that is just one thing, women become eligible for other benefits when pregnant]

9/13/2013 9:56:35 AM

A)You're completely ignoring the time and effort (and productivity killing) it takes to have the child. A woman can't "not give a shit about it" even if she wanted to.

B)I understand that they get benefits, I need the claim "a statistically significant percentage of welfare recipients do not give a shit about their kids and essentially abandon them so they can get the welfare" backed up by something other than your gut.

It seems much more plausible to me that having children is a money and time sink that keeps people from getting off of welfare.

9/13/2013 10:14:05 AM

its not. google it if you want, i don't give a shit.

[Edited on September 13, 2013 at 10:18 AM. Reason : i'm sensitive about issue because my cousin had to get pregnant so she could get healthcare for chr ]

9/13/2013 10:16:57 AM

Ok man, no problem.

9/13/2013 10:31:13 AM

Anecdotal, but hopefully explaining where dtownral is coming from.

Mother with 4 kids living at home getting in excess of $2k per month in benefits, buying the cheapest shit possible to stay alive, and pocketing the rest for personal amusement later.

Same mother coached the kids on what to say when they were interviewed by whatever government schmuck they use to qualify these people. She was even able to secure some money for "mental health problems" as long as she agreed to visit a shrink twice a month. Never went, and the shrink never gave enough of a shit to alert authorities.

Same mother disowns said children when they become adults/move out because each time they do her free ride becomes less.

Dont think it happens? Move the Gaston County for awhile. That will even prove these people are in the majority. Same people use craigslist and facebook to trade EBT benefits around, or they'll buy a shitload of formula and sell it for cash. You're delusional if you don't think these people should have the fuckhammer dropped on them.

[Edited on September 13, 2013 at 11:22 AM. Reason : -]

9/13/2013 11:22:23 AM

I personally know a woman who has 9 children now, and she has said it was exclusively for the additional money. She isn't going to have any more because I guess there's some kind of cap after the 9th kid.

She's not exactly the brightest, but that's her thought process on having kids. They're just precious little paychecks that she can cash in on.

Point is, we should be doing everything we can to keep that kind of thinking even being an option and make the opposite more attractive. We'll pay you not to have kids!

9/13/2013 11:34:15 AM

disco_stu would be right if all parents put their children as priority #1.

But accumulating $2k+ per month and making the kids eat spaghetti or elbows (no meat) 4 times a week and cold sandwiches the rest of the time.

Yeah that doesnt cost jack. Where is the rest going? Oh yeah, all those glorious things that certain people think are just "poor trash stereotypes."

Nope, fact.

9/13/2013 11:37:16 AM

disco_stu wins this thread

9/13/2013 11:57:09 AM

It seems like some people just can't wrap their heads around the idea that we can worry about that problem and still be liberal-minded. To be clear...

- I don't endorse wholesale cutting these programs as per the OP
- We don't need forced sterilizations/abortions (although zero-cost contraceptives would be nice)
- No, I don't think this is a widespread problem

Even if it's a tiny tiny fraction of kids that have to grow up like this, it's still worth our time. Hey, only 0.5% of the population is in jail, and housing them costs the government a $texas. Even a small number of people can cause a large number of social problems.

I don't at all see how Gaston County is an example of this.

The issue isn't the anecdotal evidence alone - the issue is the core claim of the anecdotal evidence. If you go look up the numbers, it checks out. I agree, it's hard to get government assistance. But BOTH sides of the isle fail to recognize that is not a good thing. Narrowing the profile of who is eligible pushes more people into that profile. I'm tired of liberals (in particular) acting like they're allergic to that argument.

[Edited on September 13, 2013 at 12:20 PM. Reason : I guess I just have lower standards for Republcians]

9/13/2013 12:19:19 PM

Quote :

"- I don't endorse wholesale cutting these programs as per the OP - We don't need forced sterilizations/abortions (although zero-cost contraceptives would be nice) - No, I don't think this is a widespread problem Even if it's a tiny tiny fraction of kids that have to grow up like this, it's still worth our time. Hey, only 0.5% of the population is in jail, and housing them costs the government a $texas. Even a small number of people can cause a large number of social problems."

I agree with all of this. I just think it's an education and access to contraception problem instead of a welfare fraud problem.

9/13/2013 1:38:28 PM

Please expound upon "education."

9/13/2013 4:27:21 PM

Red states consistently have the highest numbers of people on government assistance.

9/13/2013 4:51:24 PM

Quote :

"because it is: you're saying that certain people are of no value whatsoever and somehow their kids will be worthless too because "poor people lol""

they're not worthless. they're actually worse than that. they have negative worth. they will cost us more than they will ever contribute.

9/13/2013 6:15:33 PM

so I guess not everyone has the freedom to be successful. American dream and all that.

9/13/2013 7:47:00 PM

Oh look, lewisje is saying "rethugs" again. How cute.

9/13/2013 9:17:03 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/unintended-pregnancy-_n_3906668.html

Again, poor people clearly need some kind of help or nudge in terms of family planning. I'm not a big fan of soft paternalism, but this is one of those times when the stakes are so high that I can look past my ideals and say that we need to do something.

9/14/2013 9:17:28 AM

two of the worst offenders are republican states

9/14/2013 10:05:04 AM

Quote :

"two of the worst offenders are republican states poor and 40% minorities"

9/14/2013 10:51:53 AM

Quote :

"Again, poor people clearly need some kind of help or nudge in terms of family planning. I'm not a big fan of soft paternalism, but this is one of those times when the stakes are so high that I can look past my ideals and say that we need to do something."

It's hard to find something that upsets me more than government paternalism. I believe in the importance of compassion, but I don't think that should ever extend to believing that I know better than someone else about their own life.

Even though unwanted pregnancies are a product indiscretion, it's still subject to incentives just like anything else. I think there's another "level" of social cognition that's built into human networks. The biological imperative to reproduce is strong, even though it doesn't exist in the Ego of the human mind. If a community can continue increasing its numbers without a decline in mortality - then nature demands to grow until failure. We don't have to continue to follow the rules of the jungle, but chronic neglect will still revert people to that state. At that point, it's not even "people" who are responsible. It's population-level dynamics. If you grow up exposed to a certain kind of environment, then biological triggers are set for the rest of your life. This, played out on a network scale, is like playing with dragons. At any given time, humans are ready for evolution toward a utopia or a dystopia. Those mechanisms are smarter than ourselves. Our DNA has a response planned to a broken world.

Nonetheless, I think that technology also "wants" something, and this tends toward a stable world. Our world is a combination of a number competing forces of nature. In 80 years or so, the battle will be played out. We will have integrated into a relatively classless society, or we will be dead.

9/14/2013 11:24:56 AM

Here's the thing, I'm almost an anarchist level libertarian. I don't think we should have any kind of social safety net, but as long as we do have massive social programs I think it's probably a good idea to offer positive feedback for smart behavior.

Now, I'm not saying that we should penalize people for having children, I'm not in favor of bringing an economic hammer like China has for additional children, but positive feedback for not having children while you are on the public dime might not be the worst idea.

When you're paying your own way and not taking government assistance you can do whatever you want as far as I'm concerned.

9/14/2013 4:55:21 PM

Quote :

" so yeah a phone with a data plan is a lot cheaper and more of a necessity than home cable/internet. "

not to split hairs... but you can get dsl or cable for 14-15 a month .... data plans are 30 minimum....


or you could go to the fucking library and use public internet once or twice a day to check email and save that money for .... food?

9/16/2013 5:58:17 AM

^And don't tell me poor people don't have access to a library. Public transportation ftw.

Lets be honest here. How many people on food stamps are really using their iPhone for job searches. I can see the typed up resume now, with all of your typical text substitutions. Did they also download that pdf maker app to make their resume they typed up, all on their phone, look a little bit more professional?

9/16/2013 7:13:33 AM

Quote :

"but you can get dsl or cable for 14-15 a month "

huh?

no.

9/16/2013 9:43:15 AM