Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I grew up in a small town in a very rural community where good jobs were scarce. It seemed like almost everyone I knew was on some sort of government assistance. While some seemed to be doing everything they could to better themselves, many were comfortable to make this a way of life. I witnessed people selling food stamps, paying for services(like babysitters, getting their lawn mowed or leaves raked), with them, and even buying drugs with food stamps. It was ridiculous.
I had some friends who's mother would send them into a grocery store, each with a food stamp to buy a 10 cent price of candy and then bring her out the change. They would do this repeatedly until she had enough to go in and buy a couple packs of cigarettes or a six pack of beer. There are definitely people who live to take advantage of the system.
At the same time, as I grew older, I have witnessed serious corruption in every class or group of people that I know of. Corruption in schools, small businesses, big businesses, the local sheriffs office, the governors office, the federal government, religious establishments, ext. Sadly, I think that this is just another reflection on our culture and our people as a whole.
I'm not sure there is a good answer to totally beat corruption. I think any almost any system of government can work if you have a moral people, but we don't.
One thing I have noticed is the resentment by many people that modest pleasures should be denied people who already suffer with the grinding, soulsucking misery of poverty. It's as if any form of relief, even a cigarette, must be denied people to make their misery perfect and complete.
There is a lot to be said for thinking ahead, being prudent, planning, and all that; but none of it ever removes the sheer risk of living, all the things we don't control, and all the consequences we can't see. I think it's fair to say we do the best we can; a little help goes a long way. It seems to me that there's a lot of ground between the "lifetime support" and "they got what they deserve." I can't really buy into either extreme. The first gives up on people, and the second gives up on people. There's something to be said for acknowledging that life lessons can be unduly crippling, and a little kindness goes a long way. I can't think of anyone who will not one day need justice tempered by mercy.
If 15.3 billion isn't enough for you, try this. I'm taking these figures from "The Big Short":
"In the US after the collapse of 2008, 5 trillion dollars of pension money, real estate value, 401Ks, savings, and bonds had disappeared. Eight million people lost their jobs and 6 million lost their homes."
Tell me the taxpayers didn't pay for that. The bank I was working for went under.
Oh, by the way? There really hasn't been any reform or reorganization of the banks. We learned nothing from the savings and loan disaster of the 80s and we learned nothing from 2008. Word is, there's another housing bubble coming up.
That's negative 15.3b, as in the government (and taxpayers) made a profit. As for bank reform, there's no argument here; I'm a Warren fan, too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by gelofogo
One thing I have noticed is the resentment by many people that modest pleasures should be denied people who already suffer with the grinding, soulsucking misery of poverty. It's as if any form of relief, even a cigarette, must be denied people to make their misery perfect and complete.
Poor people are thriftier than most, but I guess they're literally supposed to eat nothing but tasteless gruel and walk around wearing a burlap sack.
Some commentators need to get a grip. None of us are insulting welfare recipients. We're not talking about cutting anybody off. We are discussing the fraud committed by some. Fraud is an expense to the taxpayers. We have every right to discuss a means of lessening the fraud without hurting the recipients.
I don't really care if welfare recipients were able to buy "junk food" snacks. That only means they'd have to learn how to budget and plan meals around those purchases. Gosh, why such a big deal?
Someone brought up the issue of toiletries and other non-food items. I'm sorry, but what makes you think the taxpayer should pay for everything? There are many ways of making enough money to buy those extras -- raking leaves, shoveling driveways, walking dogs, washing cars, etc. The taxpayer shouldn't be expected to take care of all needs and wants of people who won't lift a finger to help themselves. If we make welfare too comfortable to be on, everyone will want to be on it.
Every year, my husband and I donate as many cases of diapers as we can manage to his employer's food drive, and when we encounter a church or school group collecting outside a grocery store throughout the year, my daughter and I always buy a couple of boxed of feminine products to toss in the cart. It's funny to see the look of shock on the adolescent boys' faces when we hand over menstrual pads, but the adult females in attendance always nod with appreciation. The importance of these items to people who are struggling cannot be overstated. Plus, we get a bit of entertainment value for our donation.
Now, as for setting aside stores specifically for SNAP recipients, it sounds unreasonably complex and expensive. Plus, it creates a potential hardship for those who may lack transportation to the stores and back home. There are lots of people living in all sorts of neighborhoods who have used food stamps at one time or another because of a temporary hardship. I think it's better that every grocery store and market be encouraged to accept SNAP even with the risk of fraud.
Last edited by randomparent; 01-31-2016 at 06:17 PM..
That's negative 15.3b, as in the government (and taxpayers) made a profit. As for bank reform, there's no argument here; I'm a Warren fan, too!
I apologize - I read that 15 b the wrong way. It's been a long week. But I'm still not sure how you see profit in that. The government bailed out AIG to the tune of 150 billion and Goldman Sachs got 14 billion. And that came from the taxpayers.
One thing I have noticed is the resentment by many people that modest pleasures should be denied people who already suffer with the grinding, soulsucking misery of poverty. It's as if any form of relief, even a cigarette, must be denied people to make their misery perfect and complete.
There is a lot to be said for thinking ahead, being prudent, planning, and all that; but none of it ever removes the sheer risk of living, all the things we don't control, and all the consequences we can't see. I think it's fair to say we do the best we can; a little help goes a long way. It seems to me that there's a lot of ground between the "lifetime support" and "they got what they deserve." I can't really buy into either extreme. The first gives up on people, and the second gives up on people. There's something to be said for acknowledging that life lessons can be unduly crippling, and a little kindness goes a long way. I can't think of anyone who will not one day need justice tempered by mercy.
Yes, there's an almost Oliver Twist sort of view to poverty in the United States. We want our poor people to LOOK poor and have access to only the barest of necessities required for subsistence. Any suspicion of 'luxury' (nice car, nice phone, nice clothes, shoes, etc) tend to be seen as evidence of corruption.
I'll be the first to admit that the SNAP program suffers from many failings, corruption not the least of which needs to be remedied. But, as posters have mentioned previously, there exists corruption at *all* levels of government, not to mention private organizations. Much of this dwarfs any sort of graft that can be achieved by a group of individuals taking advantage of a monthly welfare check. But, perhaps, when you have a fixed perception of what 'poor' looks like, it's easier to notice these things and turn a blind eye to corruption that takes place within the upper echelons of society.
Anyway, it's an interesting phenomenon, for whatever it's worth.
I apologize - I read that 15 b the wrong way. It's been a long week. But I'm still not sure how you see profit in that. The government bailed out AIG to the tune of 150 billion and Goldman Sachs got 14 billion. And that came from the taxpayers.
You're right, AIG received some money outside of the $700b TARP program, in the amount of $112.5b. The Treasury made a profit of $17.7b on the TARP portion of the AIG bailout, so the net bailout to AIG would be $94.8b unless I'm missing something.
One thing I have noticed is the resentment by many people that modest pleasures should be denied people who already suffer with the grinding, soulsucking misery of poverty. It's as if any form of relief, even a cigarette, must be denied people to make their misery perfect and complete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladlensky
Yes, there's an almost Oliver Twist sort of view to poverty in the United States. We want our poor people to LOOK poor and have access to only the barest of necessities required for subsistence. Any suspicion of 'luxury' (nice car, nice phone, nice clothes, shoes, etc) tend to be seen as evidence of corruption.
Actually, that is not true for most folks. Most folks do not resent the poor, or want to deny them pleasures, or want them to look poor. They have no problem with the poor having whatever pleasures or luxuries they like, as long as they pay for them themselves.
The problem people have is that they pay a lot of money to help folks have enough to eat and to be able to feed their kids, and go to the doctor and get medicine. Because we are told that without us contributing that money, those poor folks would starve, and their kids would starve. The social safety net is there, and paid for by tax payers, so that people don't starve, or go homeless, or freeze to death in the winter, or die from some ailment that could be easily treated.
But then you see someone who is receiving money from the social safety net who appears to have plenty of money to spend on cigarettes or other luxuries. And the question becomes, why am I giving you money for food, when you have money for food, you're just spending it on cigarettes or a phone instead? That's not cool, please give me my money back, and use your own money for your own food. THAT'S the feeling that people have. Not resentment for being poor. Just "if you have enough money for those things, you need to give me MY money back, and use your own for your necessities".
And then the poor say no, they deserve to be able to take your money to buy their food, so that they can get cigarettes or a phone, because "it's not your money anymore, it's mine" or "I deserve some pleasure because poverty sucks" or "you just don't like me because I don't look poor". That's ridiculous. If you don't need my money to keep you and your kids ALIVE, then I want it back, and that's all there is to it, thank you. You can buy your cigarettes all you want, but I shouldn't pay for them.
But then you see someone who is receiving money from the social safety net who appears to have plenty of money to spend on cigarettes or other luxuries. And the question becomes, why am I giving you money for food, when you have money for food, you're just spending it on cigarettes or a phone instead? That's not cool, please give me my money back, and use your own money for your own food. THAT'S the feeling that people have. Not resentment for being poor. Just "if you have enough money for those things, you need to give me MY money back, and use your own for your necessities".
And then the poor say no, they deserve to be able to take your money to buy their food, so that they can get cigarettes or a phone, because "it's not your money anymore, it's mine" or "I deserve some pleasure because poverty sucks" or "you just don't like me because I don't look poor". That's ridiculous. If you don't need my money to keep you and your kids ALIVE, then I want it back, and that's all there is to it, thank you. You can buy your cigarettes all you want, but I shouldn't pay for them.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. I think some people make a sport out of trying to observe the poor buying 'luxuries' so that they can embark on their nasty little rants. Anyone who feels that way should also be indignant about anyone buying cigarettes, sugary drinks and fatty foods because ultimately we all pay for those decisions through higher health care costs. And they should be outraged over their neighbor buying a boat because that kind of extravagance could ultimately lead to the economic downfall of that family and omg they might end up on food stamps..
Sorry, but I don't buy it. I think some people make a sport out of trying to observe the poor buying 'luxuries' so that they can embark on their nasty little rants. Anyone who feels that way should also be indignant about anyone buying cigarettes, sugary drinks and fatty foods because ultimately we all pay for those decisions through higher health care costs. And they should be outraged over their neighbor buying a boat because that kind of extravagance could ultimately lead to the economic downfall of that family and omg they might end up on food stamps..
Sorry, but I for one agree 100 percent with pkbab's post above. What s/he wrote is EXACTLY how I feel.
And although I agree with your point about cigarettes, fatty foods, etc. why should what my neighbor buys bother me in the slightest, as long as they can afford to buy it out of their own money?
Also, since you bring up health care costs, the fact is that so many people having FREE medical care is part of what drives up health care and insurance premiums for those of us who pay for our health care out of our earnings. Again, I realize that is not the ONLY reason healthcare and insurance premiums are so high, but it is part of the reason.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
