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.
Get rid of all this infantilising and shaming and penalising people for being poor. Give everyone earning below a certain amount enough cash enough to bring their income up to the amount needed to just get by (housing, food, transport, clothing) and let them live as they see fit. You'd probably save so much money in administration, enforcement and compliance costs for stores that it would be revenue neutral.
This is what we do in Australia, and it works very well. The only part of welfare which has extra work associated with it (outside of the simple jobseeking activity test) is rent assistance, where you need to show your lease to make sure they don't give you more than you pay.
How about we get rid of infantalising and shaming and penalizing ANYONE, rich, poor or in between? Give everyone the amount of money they actually earned. Tax them for services only, such as police, military, roads, schools. Then leave everyone's pocketbook the heck alone.
Thank God someone here understood my point. It's considered fraud if you sell your foodstamp benefits but if you live in a state like Mississippi with a monthly benefit TANF cash benefit of $170 for a family of three, I don't see how you can even get school supplies for your kids without selling your food stamps. When I did volunteer work with poor women some of them would buy candy their kids as a birthday gift because they didn't have the cash to buy them toys. It was really heartbreaking to see that happening. I think it's demeaning and unnecessary to treat the poor as if they are too stupid to make the same choices that we all make. Give them the cash equivalent of SNAP & WIC benefits and let them decide how to spend it.
Again, I do realize that different locations have different experiences for the poor.
However, here in the Denver metro area, at least one local TV station, supermarkets and at least some food banks have school supply drives, so there are a LOT of them. Now, I have no idea how many families go without school supplies here, despite these drives, or even how the distribution is managed, but it seems that barrels of supplies are collected -- and at the food bank I volunteered, we had a whole room (about 10 x 10) STUFFED with school supplies and book bags (which took up the majority of the space, of course). I should also mention that we also offered a free clothing bank, as well, although it was limited to only kids clothes. (The adult clothing bank is handled by another charity close by.)
Ditto the above for Christmas toys, btw.
As far as food, yes, it was often feast or practically starve at the food bank. We virtually always had a "ton" of bread, courtesy of Panera Bread who gave us their day old bread, but the other things were usually feast of famine. November through March was feast (due to all the holiday food drives), the rest of the time, people were sometimes lucky if they could get a small shipping box full of food. Also, just btw, families were limited to one trip to the food bank for three days worth of food (IF we had that much) per calendar month; and the amount of food given was based on the proven number of members in the household, and yes, records were kept, so as to prevent more than one trip per month per household.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention -- a LOT of food was donated by local supermarkets with excess inventory of soon-to-expire stuff. (And, yes, I am fairly sure these companies got some kind of write-off tax break, but so what? Better to feed poor people than just throw it out!)
As far as medical/dental care, some clinics have a yearly "free day" in addition to --if I am not VERY much mistaken -- free medical care being given under certain circumstances, anyway.
So, if similar programs aren't being done in your locale, perhaps someone could make some phone calls or write some letters? I will tell you that the TV stations, clinics, and supermarkets who sponsor these drives get some GREAT P.R.!!
P.S. Now, again, I am not definitely NOT saying that poor people have it great here -- not at all! I want to stress that although the programs I listed are available, I have no idea how many poor people here still do not get adequate help. Maybe 100 families, maybe 10,000. Again, I have no idea.
Last edited by katharsis; 01-23-2016 at 01:53 PM..
Here's some figures for you then. We spend $600 billion dollars a year on the military, of which the government admits at least $60 billion, probably closer to $100 billion is spent on counterterrorism. But more than that is spent on counterterrorism because more than that is spent on "classified projects." We spend $74 billion on Food Stamps. And here we OP is are, posting yet another thread complaining about welfare recipients using Food Stamps to feed themselves when the government is spending 8 times more money waging war. I think feeding poor people is more important than starting conflicts, but I'm just funny that way.
TOTAL Government Spending in 2015: 3,504 billion (100%)
Government Spending on Handouts in 2015: 2,207 billion (63%)
Made up of Social Security (814 billion), All forms of Government Assistance to the poor (537 billion), Medicare (498 billion), Medicaid and Health Insurance Subsidies (358 billion)
Defense: 633 billion (18%)
Everything else: 664 billion (19%)
Breaking down some pieces of the above:
Homeland Security (60 billion), SNAP/Foodstamps (74 billion), SNAP/Foodstamp Fraud (0.75 billion)
We, as a country, spend 2,207 billion on handouts to the poor/elderly/disabled, for everything, including food. And 633 billion on the military. The military is what tax money is SUPPOSED to be spent on, according to the constitution.
The military is not the problem. And food stamp fraud? That's not even big enough to be "chump change" lol.
SNAP fraud by itself is infitismal when compared to all of the handouts added all together, including SS and Medicare, which yes are handouts. SS and Medicare are contributed to based on ability, and distributed based on need. Definition of a handout, right there.
Sorry, but I don't understand the above. If people contribute to Social Security and Medicare to the tune of $737.34 per month, as my husband does (I have his paycheck stub in front of me, and I made about half as much as he did before I retired), then how is collecting Social Security after retiring considered a handout?
The sad fact is that it is entirely possible that we might not see a single cent of what we paid into those programs for the past approximately 40 years, if we should both die before filing for SS, or before reaching 65 in the case of Medicare. Both my father and my father-in-law died before the age of 60.
Also, unless I missed something, Social Security is only given out before retirement under very limited circumstances, and even then it is based on how much the household wage earners had put into it. Retiree social security payments are based entirely on what you paid into it and -- again, unless I am very much mistaken -- how soon after reaching age 62 you start taking Social Security payments. And retiree Medicare does not start until age 65.
Now, perhaps you are speaking only of widow(er)s and their children who collect Social Security after the major breadwinner dies, as his or her dependents -- but I don't begrudge this at all, as to me, the social security payments the breadwinner made was a form of insurance. And, as we all know, some people win by making insurance payments, and some lose.
I do not "blame" you for having 2 kids with a deadbeat. That was your choice, your life, doesn't bother me one bit. Your children are most likely lovely and sweet. But none of this means you deserve to get the money I earned. it should not be related whatsoever. You have your life, you kids, I have my life and my kids, we each have whatever money we earned, period. Done. Not I give you my money because I have more and you have less. Not the government gives you money they taxed from me because I have more and you have less. If you do that, you're punishing ME. For what? What did I do to you? Nothing.
See this is where you're wrong. If I'm hungry and my children are starving, I'm going to feed them by any means necessary, even if that means holding you up by gunpoint. My children are more likely to be less disciplined and act out in school, and getting them under control takes time away from teachers actually teaching...taking time away from your child's education. My child is more likely to get involved with and sell drugs to earn money, and might be selling drugs in school to your children.
Any behavior in your community that goes along with desperate behavior will negatively affect you in some way eventually. You do not live on an island, you live in a community. Your taxes, for roads you may not drive on, libraries you may not attend, schools that your children don't attend, services for the disabled that you don't need, and of course Medicaid, Medicare, and funding our billion dollar war in the Middle East are all services YOU are already paying for. It's the tax one pays for living in society, for living in America. If you don't want to pay for these things, you should go live in the woods, live off the grid and be 100% self-sufficient.
And like someone said upthread, welfare costs are a drop in the bucket as far as federal spending is concerned. If you want your taxes to go down significantly you should save your outrage for military spending. The amount spent on welfare is only about 4% - 5%. That means 95% of your tax dollars are going elsewhere. When you factor how many people and corporations pay into the tax system, and how low the percentage going towards Food Stamps, you are probably paying something like $.10 per day towards Food Stamps, depending on your tax bracket. You want to see a big break in your taxes? Get angry about military spending. That's where all our tax money is going.
We, as a country, spend 2,207 billion on handouts to the poor/elderly/disabled, for everything, including food. And 633 billion on the military. The military is what tax money is SUPPOSED to be spent on, according to the constitution.
The military is not the problem. And food stamp fraud? That's not even big enough to be "chump change" lol.
A government is supposed to protect its citizens both externally and internally. The government should protect us from enemies outside our borders, but it should also help protect us from each other (police, FDA, etc.) and protect us from extreme poverty and hardship. If we're well protected from terrorists, but if 45,400,000 citizens inside the US are starving and may die from malnutrition, then what's the point? What are we really protecting if we can't help our own citizens? Oh great, we're protecting our lands. The people in the lands may actually be dying, but at least our physical property is safe? That makes no sense.
When you factor how many people and corporations pay into the tax system, and how low the percentage going towards Food Stamps, you are probably paying something like $.12 per paycheck towards Food Stamps, depending on you tax bracket.
I am not going to dispute the truth of MOST of what you wrote, but I do dispute your claim that most people pay about 12 cents per paycheck toward food stamps. As I wrote earlier, here are some links about SNAP and TANF:
Now I realize that the entire approximately $91 billion does not come from the paychecks of Joe and Jane Taxpayer. Much of it almost certainly does come from corporations. However, the more corporations must spend on their taxes, the less they have to spend on their employee salaries.
Now, I am certainly no economist! It made no sense to me in college, and it still makes little sense to me. However, isn't it true that the money for ANY program must come from somewhere, and money that is spent "here" means that there is less money to be spent elsewhere?
Or did I just prove once again that I truly am a dunce when it comes to economics?
If we're well protected from terrorists, but 40% of citizens inside the US are starving and may die from malnutrition, then what's the point? That makes no sense.
Where did you get the 40% figure? Did you just make that up as a "what if"/hypothetical situation, or do you truly believe the 40% of U.S. citizens are in danger of dying from malnutrition/starvation?
Or perhaps you are saying that because 40% have some kind of food assistance, that means that without it, they would be in dancer of starvation/maltnutrition? If you are saying that, then I think you are wrong. According to the following link from the U.S. government, approximately 45,400,000 people in the U.S. now have some kind of food assistance. If you use the estimated population of 325,000,000, that is about 14 percent, not 40 percent. (Yes, these are only approximate figures, but no way is the 40 percent figure that you used accurate.)
Ok, I did some digging and found out that you're right regarding Food Stamp allocation from taxpayers pay checks. If one makes a salary of $50,000 or more, $.10 per day comes out of that paycheck, or $1.00 bi-weekly, or $36.82 annually. That breaks down to 0.0735% per paycheck towards food stamps and other programs.*
*"The $36.82 is not only for food stamps. Money is allocated to two other programs that include the school lunch program, and the special supplemental food program for women, infants and children (aka WIC). This comprises the totality of the costs associated with the program including administrative."
It doesn't matter how hard it is. Life is hard. You are not entitled to other people's money because you had 2 little kids with a deadbeat.
Read your own quote again, pkbab5. Did you blame the deadbeat for not supporting his children and forcing the mother to seek outside assistance? Nope, you sure didn't.
Did you specifically blame the mother for having kids with a "deadbeat?" Yep, you sure did. Do you really think that women, when they get involved in a relationship or get married, think "I sure hope this guy will leave me with little kids to support on my own so I can go on public assistance!!!" No, they have the same expectations that everyone else does that the relationship will last. So when the man bails on his family, doesn't pay child support, pays as little child support as legally possible, doesn't help out financially where and when he is supposed to (morally AND legally), please explain to me exactly how that is the fault of the mother who is doing everything she must to take care of her family.
Please take your time coming up with an answer that is based in reality.
Last edited by MoonBeam33; 01-23-2016 at 02:44 PM..
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.
