Food Stamps And The Politics Of Entitlements

[quietmike]

As I have mentioned several times before, no one is useing your money to buy anythng unless you give it directly to them. Yes, you are showing angst that people who are in poverty to the degree that they qualify at some level for some program, have the audacity to own things. There are people (I am not one) who resent former military personel living out their lives on the dole. You don't have a problem with that, do you? Should former military people be required to surrender all property, real and personal, in order to qualify for VA benefits? It really doesn't matter though since tax money is no longer ours once it is paid to the government.

That is such nonsense. Where does government money come from in your world? Is government a money laundering scheme?

[Codger_64]

The taxpayers are only paying the taxes assessed by the government according to law. They do not, as individuals "help them out". Or rather, if taxpayers do help out people individually, they do so outside of the established government programs.

Pride. Yes many people who actually need help do have pride. And unfair painting of them with the most broad brush keeps them from applying for and getting needed assistance. Like Theodoric James.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...gdL_story.html

[Codger_64]

"From source derived"? Do you think that individual income taxes are the government's only source of revenue? Even if it was, where does your income come from? From your employer. So it is the employer's money, not yours. Or where does the employer's money come from? From his customers. So it is his customers' money, not his. You can chase the monkey around the mulberry bush all you want, but the fact is that it is the government's money, not the individual taxpayers'.

[quietmike]

"From source derived"? Do you think that individual income taxes are the government's only source of revenue? Even if it was, where does your income come from? From your employer. So it is the employer's money, not yours. Or where does the employer's money come from? From his customers. So it is his customers' money, not his. You can chase the monkey around the mulberry bush all you want, but the fact is that it is the government's money, not the individual taxpayers'.

If government lowered taxes would individuals have more money or not? To pretend it isn't the people's money is to fall for the first trap of socialism. After all if the government "owns" it, they get to decide how to use it constitution be damned.

[Codger_64]

You buy a car from govenrment motors. You pay them. The money is no longer yours.

[Kiah]

I'm sure that's part of it, but the study is for multiple years and overall, and the facts in the study disagree with your suggestion. The vast majority of "the poor" have most of those amenities. Perhaps a review of the study would be of value.

It's of great value. Almost all the poor have refrigerators. They should pretty easily be able to sell those and buy groceries for the month.

[timcsaw]

As I have mentioned several times before, no one is useing your money to buy anythng unless you give it directly to them. Yes, you are showing angst that people who are in poverty to the degree that they qualify at some level for some program, have the audacity to own things. There are people (I am not one) who resent former military personel living out their lives on the dole. You don't have a problem with that, do you? Should former military people be required to surrender all property, real and personal, in order to qualify for VA benefits? It really doesn't matter though since tax money is no longer ours once it is paid to the government.

But that's just it... I don't mind if people own those things, I mind that people buy those things (before necessities) with public funds... I mind that the government allows them to qualify for the programs in the first place.

Those who would resent retired military (or any other worker who is promised specific compensation) from recieving the benifits promised to them by their employer as condition's of service, can't or won't understand the difference between "earning payment for services rendered", and "demanding/taking payment for having provided no services".

As a buisness man... imagine you offer a man $10.00 per hour to do specific tasks of work/labor for you for 8 hours. At the end of the day, he has earned that which you promissed him hasn't he?

What will you do when the man across the street, who has done nothing but set on the sidewalk for 8 hours watching the two of you work, comes to you and demands to be paid for having done nothing for you? Will you give him $80 also? How will the man who actually worked for you feel if you give the "sitter" that money? How will he feel if you give the sitter $40 (half wages)? $20? $10? How motivated will your worker be tomorrow, if he can join the sitter across the street and watch you work and STILL get paid?

[timcsaw]

It's of great value. Almost all the poor have refrigerators. They should pretty easily be able to sell those and buy groceries for the month.

They can't afford that many groceries at one time. They can sell that big refrigerator and buy a smaller one. (I still actually have an Ice-box that I can use if I need it... bonus, no electricity required).

[Nordic Viking]

Those who would resent retired military (or any other worker who is promised specific compensation) from recieving the benifits promised to them by their employer as condition's of service, can't or won't understand the difference between "earning payment for services rendered", and "demanding/taking payment for having provided no services".

IIRC, you receive 100% disibility from your government as well as free healthcare for 23 years military service. Who's to say that those who "demand services" were not being in service of their fellow people too before falling on harder times? Teachers, paramedics, full time parents etc.

[Kiah]

They can't afford that many groceries at one time. They can sell that big refrigerator and buy a smaller one.

Of course. The profit from that used fridge might be enough to buy a compact one. Plus you get the added bonus of playing tetris with your groceries and getting to know your local checkout people better.

(I still actually have an Ice-box that I can use if I need it... bonus, no electricity required).

That's actually pretty cool. What glacier do you chip your ice from?

[Codger_64]

Of course. The profit from that used fridge might be enough to buy a compact one. Plus you get the added bonus of playing tetris with your groceries and getting to know your local checkout people better.



That's actually pretty cool. What glacier do you chip your ice from?

Good idea! So when they sell the refridgerator that belongs to the landlord, they can buy a week's groceries! That require refridgeration? Or have we determined that they do not need fresh fruits and vegetable, fresh meat and dairy products? I've used one of those small refridgerators. They don't hold a week's worth of groceries, particularly not enough to feed a family. I bought $75 worth of groceries this week and carried them home in two sacks. Some of it went into the refridg I bought used for $100.

[Kiah]

Good idea! So when they sell the refridgerator that belongs to the landlord, they can buy a week's groceries! That require refridgeration? Or have we determined that they do not need fresh fruits and vegetable, fresh meat and dairy products?

I'm thinking the latter. Mostly canned goods should be more than adequate. Plus they need to sell their stoves anyway, so fresh meat is out. Not sure if they should be allowed to have can openers. They could probably trade those for a stick of butter and just use their teeth.

I've used one of those small refridgerators. They don't hold a week's worth of groceries, particularly not enough to feed a family.

You're doing it wrong. You have to lay down and push with your legs.

[Codger_64]

Maybe put a trash compactor inside?

[Codger_64]

Perhaps they should all sell their shoes too. All except all those military families on the dole.

[Kiah]

Maybe put a trash compactor inside?

That'd be expensive. If the leg press doesn't do it, a good running head butt should put the eggs where they need to be.

Perhaps they should all sell their shoes too. All except all those military families on the dole.

But then Obamacare would have to include corn pads and lotion. That my friend would destroy the country and civilization as we know it. Maybe just limit 'em to Crocs and flip flops.

[Noctis3880]

Good idea! So when they sell the refridgerator that belongs to the landlord, they can buy a week's groceries! That require refridgeration? Or have we determined that they do not need fresh fruits and vegetable, fresh meat and dairy products? I've used one of those small refridgerators. They don't hold a week's worth of groceries, particularly not enough to feed a family. I bought $75 worth of groceries this week and carried them home in two sacks. Some of it went into the refridg I bought used for $100.

Fresh meat? Yes. Fresh fruits and vegetables? I'd like to see who you've been observing walking through the checkout. Dairy products? That depends if ice cream counts as dairy.

I don't believe the moochers harm the appearance of those who genuinely need the assistance, at least in my eyes. I say this because of the tremendous amount of gratitude I feel(though unspoken, and regrettably so) whenever I actually SEE fresh fruits and vegetables being purchased with an EBT card. Certainly a welcome change of scenery compared to all the junk food, steak, and ahi poke(raw fish, ready-to-eat, very tasty), especially in the first week of the month. But given my reaction, it does seem as though healthy purchases are the exception rather than the rule.

I won't begrudge the ownership of a refrigerator unless it's one of those $2000 gimmicky ones. Refrigeration is a basic necessity for those of us not growing our own crops or farm animals. It's the TVs, home entertainment, internet, cable, and game systems I don't get. Granted I have most of those as well(aside from cable), but if I had trouble keeping myself fed, I wouldn't bother with having any entertainment because all my time would be spent either working, eating, or sleeping. I might somehow fit brushing my teeth and taking a shower in there too with the occasional laundry.

[Preacher Man]

How would you suggest that "poor" be defined? (actually, the term used is "poverty")

http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/p...orshansky.html

I think the dictionary definition works fine: Having little or no possessions, and little means of support.

This is why stories of the "poor" with big screen TVs and xboxs don't go over too well.

Codger, if you ask the wrong question, you'll get the wrong answer. What kind of poverty are you referring to? Absolute Poverty, Relative Poverty, Chronic Poverty, or Federal Poverty Thresholds? Quitemike gave you the definition of Absolute poverty, basically someone who is homeless or at the brink of homelessness. The list Tim shared reflect the Federal Poverty Threshold, which to a point is closer or a form of Relative Poverty. This is what the Census and and all Government agencies use to define poverty.

There are several reasons for the difference between the Federal Threshold and Absolute poverty, chief among them is the interest of the State and society to avoid a high rate of absolute poverty among the population. One definition is descriptive. The other is based on the efforts to avoid absolute poverty. Obviously both definitions will not match. Apples and Oranges.

Not every person who is poor at one time or another was always poor, nor will he remain poor if he can find a well paying job. The exception are individuals who became poor as result of disability, and those who refuse to work. This means that many of the "poor" have amenities that have been acquired over time.

It is obvious that someone who is destitute, homeless, or at the brink of homelessness has little or no possessions. Expecting the poor to be destitute before they can receive government help is extremely shortsighted. Like outsourcing, it can be convenient in the short run, but the long term consequences to society and the economy can be extremely negative.

[Codger_64]

Yes, that was my point, though I evidently did not make it clear enough. Some here would suggest that a person must be in abject poverty to get any assistance. Well, by that time, it is a long way back to productivity and becoming once again self sufficient. Not every adult has a parent they can live with when they don't have a pot to cook peas in.

[Preacher Man]

Yes, that was my point, though I evidently did not make it clear enough. Some here would suggest that a person must be in abject poverty to get any assistance. Well, by that time, it is a long way back to productivity and becoming once again self sufficient. Not every adult has a parent they can live with when they don't have a pot to cook peas in.

That is part of the interest of the State and Society on this issue. That is why The court has consistently ruled Entitlements constitutional based on the General Welfare Clause. The cost and negative consequences to The State and Society would be greater if the rate of Absolute poverty grew in direct relation and parallel to the Unemployment/underemployment rate.

[quietmike]

Well, by that time, it is a long way back to productivity and becoming once again self sufficient.

That is part of the interest of the State and Society on this issue. That is why The court has consistently ruled Entitlements constitutional based on the General Welfare Clause. The cost and negative consequences to The State and Society would be greater if the rate of Absolute poverty grew in direct relation and parallel to the Unemployment/underemployment rate.

So you guys are saying a more stringent welfare system would be worse than the fourth and fifth generation recipients, and one in six of Americans we currently have on assistance?