Should food stamp recipients be required to work?

[Chris]

You can read the article @ Should food stamp recipients be required to work? (http://money.msn.com/now/post--should-food-stamp-recipients-be-required-to-work), but don't think you need to. Think of work in terms of community service of some sort. If a person is able, should he or she have to work in return for food stamps?

[patrickt]

I understand the sentiment but it's a government program and wouldn't work. To begin with it would cost us a fortune to hire a whole new workforce to oversee the community service program and I doubt we'd hire the workforce from the ranks of people getting food stamps.

Years ago there was a government program which paid half the salary for a position that was for young people from welfare families where no one worked. It was intended to help teach them how to work and move them into the workforce. I took part in the program and had two employees who went on to apply for regular jobs and move into the workforce. And then there was Emily. She never showed up. I called the office administering the program and after two months Emily showed up with a case worker. The case worker had a stack of time sheets I was supposed to sign for Emily.

"But, she wasn't here."
"Well, she was having some problems."
"I'm sorry to hear that but I'm not signing the timesheets. That's fraud. That's illegal. That's not what Emily is supposed to be learning. If she'd like to show up I'm willing to let her."

Well, she wasn't will to show up and the case worker called me some names and left. I'm sure Emily is on food stamps now and she wouldn't work for those, either.

[Chris]

Hadn't thought of that when I posted. Appreciate the thoughtful response.

[countryboy]

You can read the article @ Should food stamp recipients be required to work? (http://money.msn.com/now/post--should-food-stamp-recipients-be-required-to-work), but don't think you need to. Think of work in terms of community service of some sort. If a person is able, should he or she have to work in return for food stamps?
If they are physically capable, of course they should be required to work.

[jillian]

yes, you should starve children if mom or dad loses their job.

butt-backward rightwing lunacy....

:cuckoo:

making people work for food takes away the need to actually hire people...

d;uh

[fyrenza]

The responsibility for supervision could be handled by actual EMPLOYERS that are already in place :

Why couldn't a recipient "work" for the states/cities/counties in, say, Parks & Recreation,
or as janitorial staff in public buildings,
or as trash collectors,
or any other job that requires no skills/training?

It would be nice to have them work, for half of the day,
and be required to attend some sort of vocational training classes for the other half, imho.

[Chris]

yes, you should starve children if mom or dad loses their job.

butt-backward rightwing lunacy....

:cuckoo:

making people work for food takes away the need to actually hire people...

d;uh

Moronic response, jill. This measure would amount to giving dad and mom a job paid with food stamps.

[countryboy]

The responsibility for supervision could be handled by actual EMPLOYERS that are already in place :

Why couldn't a recipient "work" for the states/cities/counties in, say, Parks & Recreation,
or as janitorial staff in public buildings,
or as trash collectors,
or any other job that requires no skills/training?

It would be nice to have them work at a menial job, for half of the day,
and be required to attend some sort of vocational training classes for the other half, imho.
That's all well and good, but then they might not vote strictly liberal demoncrat. And we couldn't have that. [/sarcasm]

All smart alecyness aside, you hit the nail squarely on the head. :wink:

[jillian]

Moronic response, jill. This measure would amount to giving dad and mom a job paid with food stamps.

you don't learn, do you, troll?

you have turrets or OCD? because you keep spouting the same imbecilic things over and over and over and over...

who on earth ever told you that you have anything to say?

lmao

[Dr. Who]

The responsibility for supervision could be handled by actual EMPLOYERS that are already in place :

Why couldn't a recipient "work" for the states/cities/counties in, say, Parks & Recreation,
or as janitorial staff in public buildings,
or as trash collectors,
or any other job that requires no skills/training?

It would be nice to have them work, for half of the day,
and be required to attend some sort of vocational training classes for the other half, imho.

The response I once received to the same question, was that if all of the welfare people were given municipal jobs such as you mention, what would happen to those people who already do those jobs?

[Chris]

The responsibility for supervision could be handled by actual EMPLOYERS that are already in place :

Why couldn't a recipient "work" for the states/cities/counties in, say, Parks & Recreation,
or as janitorial staff in public buildings,
or as trash collectors,
or any other job that requires no skills/training?

It would be nice to have them work, for half of the day,
and be required to attend some sort of vocational training classes for the other half, imho.

Indeed, it might involve training. Might lead to hiring.

[patrickt]

yes, you should starve children if mom or dad loses their job.

butt-backward rightwing lunacy....

:cuckoo:

making people work for food takes away the need to actually hire people...

d;uh

My god, Jillian's right. If we paided 80% of the people in the U.S. to not work then the other 20% could have full employment and support the entire system. It's a miracle. Duh!

[patrickt]

The responsibility for supervision could be handled by actual EMPLOYERS that are already in place :

Why couldn't a recipient "work" for the states/cities/counties in, say, Parks & Recreation,
or as janitorial staff in public buildings,
or as trash collectors,
or any other job that requires no skills/training?

It would be nice to have them work, for half of the day,
and be required to attend some sort of vocational training classes for the other half, imho.

We used to have a program, 40 years ago, where kids caught vandalizing property or other petty offenses were put to work with Parks and Rec. The lawyers complained it was a lawsuit waiting to happen so the program was discontinued.

But, we still had kids who caused problems at the Parks and Rec Teen Center work cleaning the place until all the computers in the offices disappeared.

And, do you realize the level of supervision required to keep a group of people working who don't want to work?

When they realize their food stamps, and other benefits, won't actually end--my god, do you want them to starve--then the entire program falls apart.

I was picking up trash along a stretch of highway with riders from a Harley group. A deadbeat came up and started asking for money to get breakfast. One of the guys said, "You have to be an idiot asking people picking up trash for money." He threw a bright orange plastic bag to the guy and said, "Pick up trash with us and we'll buy your breakfast."

"Oh, I don't want to pick up trash."
"Okay, pick up trash and we'll buy your breakfast. Don't and we'll break your legs." So, he took a back but as the rest of us filled bag after bag with liquor bottles, beer bottles, fast food cartons, and dildos the deadbeat walked around holding an orange bag. It simply wasn't work the effort to make him bend over and pick up some trash.

This myth that all the people on the dole are normal people temporarily down on their luck has to be recognized for what it is. It's a feel-good myth that keeps the liberals going. It's bullshit.

[Peter1469]

That is a good point. If people don't want to work, they will case more harm than good. Safety nets should not become hammocks. That will help incentivize people to better themselves.

[fyrenza]

Yes, I do, actually.

ALL of the public buildings are wired with cameras,
so a "staff" of two could supervise a bank of monitors.

And guess what? NOTHING says we have to feed ANYONE who is capable of working ~
these days, the children are fed breakfast, lunch AND dinner by the schools ~

and if the parent(s) lose any "rights" to the assistance by proving to be criminals,
we have another place that they can go ~ JAIL/prison.

Sooner or later, folks are going to HAVE to be taught that it's up to THEM to support themselves,

and before anyone squawks about ^that,^

isn't ^that^ EXACTLY what responsible people do their best to teach their OWN beloved children?

[countryboy]

Safety nets should not become hammocks.
Quote of the month, maybe the year. :bow:

[Agravan]

yes, you should starve children if mom or dad loses their job.

butt-backward rightwing lunacy....

:cuckoo:

making people work for food takes away the need to actually hire people...

d;uh
You're right jillian, making people work for food is stupid, Especially since the rest of us get our food for free from the food fairy.

[Peter1469]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Chris http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=335119#post335119)

Moronic response, jill. This measure would amount to giving dad and mom a job paid with food stamps.




you don't learn, do you, troll?

you have turrets or OCD? because you keep spouting the same imbecilic things over and over and over and over...

who on earth ever told you that you have anything to say?

lmao

Stop derailing the thread with personal comments.

[Adelaide]

I don't know that this is a simple "yes or no" question. Many people are still unable to find work, if they're even still trying. If unemployment didn't exist, then I'd say yes. I think there are many jobs where the pay isn't high enough to support a family, and food is an essential that a society should have to provide to those who can't afford it. Of course there will be abuse - there is with just about everything that involves the government - but generally speaking, my previous statement is how I view food stamps.

[Agravan]

I don't know that this is a simple "yes or no" question. Many people are still unable to find work, if they're even still trying. If unemployment didn't exist, then I'd say yes. I think there are many jobs where the pay isn't high enough to support a family, and food is an essential that a society should have to provide to those who can't afford it. Of course there will be abuse - there is with just about everything that involves the government - but generally speaking, my previous statement is how I view food stamps.

While there may not be "work", there are always some things that need to be done in a community. Yard work, picking up trash, helping out at a community center, doing volunteer work at nursing homes or hospitals. There are plenty of things that a community may not be able to afford a full or part time worker for because of budgets that can be accomplished with able-bodied food stamp recipients.

[Peter1469]

I don't know that this is a simple "yes or no" question. Many people are still unable to find work, if they're even still trying. If unemployment didn't exist, then I'd say yes. I think there are many jobs where the pay isn't high enough to support a family, and food is an essential that a society should have to provide to those who can't afford it. Of course there will be abuse - there is with just about everything that involves the government - but generally speaking, my previous statement is how I view food stamps.

Absolutely. That is why benefits can't be "too generous." Safety nets yes. Hammocks, no.

[Dr. Who]

While there may not be "work", there are always some things that need to be done in a community. Yard work, picking up trash, helping out at a community center, doing volunteer work at nursing homes or hospitals. There are plenty of things that a community may not be able to afford a full or part time worker for because of budgets that can be accomplished with able-bodied food stamp recipients.Unfortunately you would not want unwilling workers coming into contact with sick and elderly people, or for that matter young children at community centers. Perhaps outdoor work, window cleaning, weed pulling etc., but only to the extent that they are not taking over tasks that employees are supposed to accomplish. Perhaps they could work at the various homeless shelters.

[Peter1469]

Or pick up trash on the side of the road. Or sort garbage to get recyclables separated.

[Chris]

While there may not be "work", there are always some things that need to be done in a community. Yard work, picking up trash, helping out at a community center, doing volunteer work at nursing homes or hospitals. There are plenty of things that a community may not be able to afford a full or part time worker for because of budgets that can be accomplished with able-bodied food stamp recipients.

Agree. Taxpayers fund food stamps and ought to get something back. It shouldn't be so much work it interferes with looking for work, but could as well provide on-the-job training and experience that go to finding work.

Still agree with patrick, it could lead to a bureaucratic nightmare monitoring it.

[Private Pickle]

Everyone should be made to work....life sucks and you will most likely hate your job...suck it up...you were born...

[Adelaide]

While there may not be "work", there are always some things that need to be done in a community. Yard work, picking up trash, helping out at a community center, doing volunteer work at nursing homes or hospitals. There are plenty of things that a community may not be able to afford a full or part time worker for because of budgets that can be accomplished with able-bodied food stamp recipients.

It would make sense to make community service in the absence of employment mandatory, so long as the recipients of the food stamps are able-bodied.

[Private Pickle]

It would make sense to make community service in the absence of employment mandatory, so long as the recipients of the food stamps are able-bodied.

The US goes out of its way to cater to the handicapped. There are no excuses...not even for them...

[Mainecoons]

All parties stop with the personal insults.

Uh, Peter, Chris insulted jillian's response. A personal insult is directly at the person. Correctly identifying the quality of the response is not a personal insult.

There's only one person who should be admonished here. Chris correctly pointed out that the response from Jillian was moronic. He did not call Jillian a moron, that would have been a PERSONAL insult.

Jillian insults herself with the quality of her posts. I think the old saying for it is, "shooting oneself in the foot." She does not need our help with this behavior.


As to the topic, I believe at least some food stamp recipients are working. Found this when I went looking:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/who-benefits-from-food-stamps/261993/


Who actually benefits from SNAP? Statistics (http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/2010CharacteristicsSummary.pdf) gathered by the USDA and issued in its newest report (http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Other/BuildingHealthyAmerica.pdf) show the following:

Some 43 percent of SNAP recipients live at or below half the poverty line. Only 15 percent can say they live above the poverty line.
Children under 18 account for 47 percent of all food stamp recipients. Eight percent are seniors.
Forty-one percent of beneficiaries lived in households with partially- or fully-employed workers.
The share of SNAP recipients that also receives welfare benefits is at historic lows; in 2010, that number was less than 10 percent.
SNAP recipients spend most of their food budget on meals at home, with grocery items like red meat and dairy products accounting for the top two food groups.
Administrative costs for the food stamp program are at the lowest they've been since the 1990s.
As to that last point, it may explain in part why the fraud level seems to be climbing with this program.

BTW, for the reasons stated above, I voted no on the survey.

[Chris]

The US goes out of its way to cater to the handicapped. There are no excuses...not even for them...

Knew a guy, decade or so back, on another forum, who argued what can I do, I'm handicapped, can't leave the house barely, can't do physical work. I reminded him he was one of the more prolific posters on the forum, why not a job in IT? Or even customer support, taking phone calls? Back in school I worked for a wheelchair store--sold and serviced them--run by a couple handicapped people, great business men, I helped with service.

[jillian]

The US goes out of its way to cater to the handicapped. There are no excuses...not even for them...

then why did the wingers vote against encouraging other countries to become handicapped friendly... even when bob dole asked them to?

[Mainecoons]

then why did the wingers vote against encouraging other countries to become handicapped friendly... even when bob dole asked them to?

Do you think you could make even a feeble attempt to post relevant responses?

I have a buddy who does just what Chris is talking about, he conducts apartment occupancy surveys from his desk and computer, all over the U.S. and Canada. Any handicapped person as Chris described could do the same.

[Dr. Who]

The US goes out of its way to cater to the handicapped. There are no excuses...not even for them...What do you expect from the severely disabled - people with CP, MD, brain damage, Down Syndrome, major heart defects or cardiac myopathy, extreme chronic pain, autism, agoraphobia, extreme anxiety, extreme PTSD - I could go on. Yes many people with mobility issues can work. Many can not. Many have issues that have nothing to do with mobility.

[Chris]

then why did the wingers vote against encouraging other countries to become handicapped friendly... even when bob dole asked them to?

Why not go find the facts instead of spin?

[Mainecoons]

And why not go start another thread if you want to discuss some unsupported allegation about how "wingers" oppose handicapped friendly laws in other countries? That has absolutely nothing to do with what Chris posted.

Sheesh!

[pragmatic]

You can read the article @ Should food stamp recipients be required to work? (http://money.msn.com/now/post--should-food-stamp-recipients-be-required-to-work), but don't think you need to. Think of work in terms of community service of some sort. If a person is able, should he or she have to work in return for food stamps?

Would certainly be a challenge to administer. But the concept is valid. Be interesting to see what impact it would have on the volume of recipients. If suddenly everybody was required to "have some skin in the game" by having to work.

Speculating wildly here. But can you imagine the screams from some if a program like this were actually proposed....??

[Private Pickle]

What do you expect from the severely disabled - people with CP, MD, brain damage, Down Syndrome, major heart defects or cardiac myopathy, extreme chronic pain, autism, agoraphobia, extreme anxiety, extreme PTSD - I could go on. Yes many people with mobility issues can work. Many can not. Many have issues that have nothing to do with mobility.

I would expect that we put into them what they put into us. Like its my fault and thus responsibility to take care of people with MS... Sorry...not my responsibility....

[pragmatic]

I would expect that we put into them what they put into us. Like its my fault and thus responsibility to take care of people with MS... Sorry...not my responsibility....


Yeah, actually it is. Sort of a "civil society" thingy....

[Chris]

Yeah, actually it is. Sort of a "civil society" thingy....

Agree, it's a problem for society to solve. And it probably would if government got out of the way.

[roadmaster]

No if they are not able to work or can't find a job. I would rather see us put money for our own than send billions to other countries. But I also believe in getting rid of the illegals from all countries so we can afford to help. Not for the Americans that refuse to work tho.

[Mainecoons]

Hell, thanks to 50 years of progressivism, they can't find a job. Now what?

Oh, I know, let's enact ObamaCare and make everyone into a part time worker and then let's enact amnesty and make sure that 5000 people show up for every menial job opening.

And then when that doesn't work, let's print money and put them all on welfare.

Yep, the liberal strategy for the long term "betterment" of America.

[Peter1469]

Uh, Peter, Chris insulted jillian's response. A personal insult is directly at the person. Correctly identifying the quality of the response is not a personal insult.

There's only one person who should be admonished here. Chris correctly pointed out that the response from Jillian was moronic. He did not call Jillian a moron, that would have been a PERSONAL insult.

Jillian insults herself with the quality of her posts. I think the old saying for it is, "shooting oneself in the foot." She does not need our help with this behavior.


As to the topic, I believe at least some food stamp recipients are working. Found this when I went looking:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/who-benefits-from-food-stamps/261993/

As to that last point, it may explain in part why the fraud level seems to be climbing with this program.

BTW, for the reasons stated above, I voted no on the survey.

You have the intelligence to make your point in an intelligent manner. I suggest that you use it. Thread banning is the next step.

[fyrenza]

Oooff!
NOT to be trying to throw gas on the fire,
but I thought he DID "make his point in an intelligent manner."

PLEASE DON'T BAN ME!! http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/hiding.gif

[Mainecoons]

You have the intelligence to make your point in an intelligent manner. I suggest that you use it. Thread banning is the next step.

I did. Without getting the least personal with you, I pointed out that you confused a personal insult with an assessment of a post of which the description "moronic" was probably too gentle. You, on the other hand, made a personal statement here questioning my intelligence so you've broken your own rules.

I freely admit to engaging in a little civil disobedience here. The moderators on this board feel free to chastise people publicly but when they do so obviously incorrectly as you have here, they think that any comment pointing out same should be hidden from the membership. I respectfully disagree. And I think I am not the only person here who is concerned about moderator bias and a seeming inability to admit error when same is pretty obvious.

Some of seem to be developing quite a resistance to admitting when you've made a bad call. That's not a good mindset for a board moderator.

Feel free to carry out your threats to ban me from the thread after you post another rebuttal which you then make sure cannot be answered.

As one of the prime personal insulters on this board likes to say. . . .

CARRY ON

[Dr. Who]

I did. Without getting the least personal with you, I pointed out that you confused a personal insult with an assessment of a post of which the description "moronic" was probably too gentle. You, on the other hand, made a personal statement here questioning my intelligence so you've broken your own rules.

I freely admit to engaging in a little civil disobedience here. The moderators on this board feel free to chastise people publicly but when they do so obviously incorrectly as you have here, they think that any comment pointing out same should be hidden from the membership. I respectfully disagree. And I think I am not the only person here who is concerned about moderator bias and a seeming inability to admit error when same is pretty obvious.

Some of seem to be developing quite a resistance to admitting when you've made a bad call. That's not a good mindset for a board moderator.

Feel free to carry out your threats to ban me from the thread after you post another rebuttal which you then make sure cannot be answered.

As one of the prime personal insulters on this board likes to say. . . .

CARRY ON

This member has been thread banned for openly challenging/questioning moderation - despite a warning.

[lynn]

Its understandable that people feel those on food stamps should contribute in some way by labor or training for skills but states cannot afford the liability and the hiring of staff to implement it into the food stamp program. There was a time in my life when I needed food stamps and the person down at the food stamp office told me that it is harder to qualify for food stamps if you have a paper trail meaning bank accounts, history of being employed over those that hardly ever worked or ever had a bank account.

Here I am in a situation that needs it and my work history tells them that I have paid into this program in taxes but I am least likely to qualify. The message I got from this experience is the working citizens are forced to finance these programs but are not allowed to use those programs when they need it. They are now doing this to us in healthcare by forcing us to pay for everybody's else healthcare but when it comes to our healthcare we are stuck with high deductibles which makes it harder to afford health services.

I don't have a problem with helping the poor with providing food stamps but I do have a problem when they go to Circle K and stock up on junk food that has no nutritional value what so ever on tax payers money.

[Max Rockatansky]

The responsibility for supervision could be handled by actual EMPLOYERS that are already in place :

Why couldn't a recipient "work" for the states/cities/counties in, say, Parks & Recreation,
or as janitorial staff in public buildings,
or as trash collectors,
or any other job that requires no skills/training?

It would be nice to have them work, for half of the day,
and be required to attend some sort of vocational training classes for the other half, imho.

I'm a big supporter of the "Teach a man to fish...." idea. For this idea, I see it costing us more than it would be worth as others have pointed out. Oversight of the program, transportation (how does a backwoods Appalachian family get to work on a non-existent RTD bus?)

Better, IMO, to limit public assistance and do as you've just suggested; require them to attend a training program and get a job. Turn them into an asset instead of a liability.

[countryboy]

You have the intelligence to make your point in an intelligent manner. I suggest that you use it. Thread banning is the next step.
Wow, seriously? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sad006.gif

[patrickt]

This member has been thread banned for openly challenging/questioning moderation - despite a warning.

Oh, my god. Not questioning moderation. The bastard. Questioning? I can't believe it. How dare he? Is banning him from a thread really sufficient for questioning? He might, gasp, question again.

[Max Rockatansky]

Oh, my god. Not questioning moderation. The bastard. Questioning? I can't believe it. How dare he? Is banning him from a thread really sufficient for questioning? He might, gasp, question again.

Hmmm. Is thread banning too much of a harsh punishment for someone who can't follow the rules while freeloading on a forum paid and managed for by someone else?

I work with charities providing shelter and food for indigents. Both the food and shelter are free, but they have to follow the rules. No weapons, no fighting, no stealing. If they break the rules, they're out. Is that really too difficult to understand?

[pragmatic]

Oh, my god. Not questioning moderation. The bastard. Questioning? I can't believe it. How dare he? Is banning him from a thread really sufficient for questioning? He might, gasp, question again.

Whenever my kids question me i like to crack 'em over the head with a whiffle ball bat. Usually shuts them right up. Not sure if that is an option here....but maybe something along those lines would be good.

[oceanloverOH]

Oh, my god. Not questioning moderation. The bastard. Questioning? I can't believe it. How dare he? Is banning him from a thread really sufficient for questioning? He might, gasp, question again.

Posting Rule #5 quite clearly states, no challenging moderation except by PM.

[Chris]

Sort of off topic but the definition of a troll, the old one, says a troll as one who makes inflammatory statements not to start an argument with others but to start one among others while they sit back and watch.

[Max Rockatansky]

Sort of off topic but the definition of a troll, the old one, says a troll as one who makes inflammatory statements not to start an argument with others but to start one among others while they sit back and watch.

I'm new here. So who is the troll?

[Dr. Who]

I'm new here. So who is the troll?RW, did you originally join in Nov 2012 or do we have a glitch in our registration system?

[Max Rockatansky]

RW, did you originally join in Nov 2012 or do we have a glitch in our registration system?

November 2012. Is this an admission to my question? I'm slightly confused.

[Chris]

I'm new here. So who is the troll?

You'll figure it out.

[Dr. Who]

November 2012. Is this an admission to my question? I'm slightly confused.Sorry. Just noticed your registration date, but you say that you are new here, so I was confused.

[Max Rockatansky]

Sorry. Just noticed your registration date, but you say that you are new here, so I was confused.

My apologies also. I'm new to posting here, but the registration date is correct.

[Max Rockatansky]

You'll figure it out.
I'm certain I will. My question had multiple reasons. One of which you just answered: Who here is honest and who is a bullshitter.

[Dr. Who]

My apologies also. I'm new to posting here, but the registration date is correct.Welcome to the forum. Glad you came back.

[Chris]

I'm certain I will. My question had multiple reasons. One of which you just answered: Who here is honest and who is a bullshitter.

And who's that?

Read the rules before you post. :-)

[Max Rockatansky]

And who's that?

Read the rules before you post. :-)

This isn't my first rodeo, Chris. Yes, sir, I read the rules. Did you? If you did, then please refer me to the one you think I'm violating.

[patrickt]

A simple question. How do you make millions of people work who don't want to work and know they get nothing for working and lose nothing by not working?

[zelmo1234]

A simple question. How do you make millions of people work who don't want to work and know they get nothing for working and lose nothing by not working?

First who said they would loose nothing? I think for those with able bodies and minds? they loose everything if they refuse to work and I don't care if it is picking up garbage and sweeping the streets They need to work!

This is the trouble with the system it allows for a pretty good existence without effort, it rewards the lazy stop this and you will change the world!

[zelmo1234]

I'm a big supporter of the "Teach a man to fish...." idea. For this idea, I see it costing us more than it would be worth as others have pointed out. Oversight of the program, transportation (how does a backwoods Appalachian family get to work on a non-existent RTD bus?)

Better, IMO, to limit public assistance and do as you've just suggested; require them to attend a training program and get a job. Turn them into an asset instead of a liability.

While it makes perfect sense that the country living person on welfare can't get into town it does not mean there are not ways to have them work, picking up garbage on the side of the road in there area, with special bags to be picked up? if the garbage collections companies report not bags picked up> then no check!

there are always ways to support the status quo but if you start to require 36 hours of work 3 12 hour days. then many if not most will figure out that if they have to work long and hard days, it would be much better if they found a job.

So where do the jobs come from? I can think of 11 million of them that cam be made available ? Can't you

[patrickt]

First who said they would loose nothing? I think for those with able bodies and minds? they loose everything if they refuse to work and I don't care if it is picking up garbage and sweeping the streets They need to work!

This is the trouble with the system it allows for a pretty good existence without effort, it rewards the lazy stop this and you will change the world!

Are you mad? They would starve. We can't allow one single person to miss a meal for any reason. Our present system operates on the principle that it's better to have 1,000,000 deadbeats ranking the system than it is to have one deserving person miss a meal.

Get real. There is no way they would ever reject someone for food stamps. And, if they did, they'd just go in as a dead person.

[Bumpkin]

I didn't care for the way the poll was set up--just yes or no.

Food stamp recipients usually are the working poor. Others are people who can't work for various reasons. Some are children. Some are disabled. Some are parents with kids who would need childcare to do community service.

If employers paid living wages, there would be little need for food stamps. As it is, food stamps are really a subsidy to employers. We taxpayers pay their employees so they won't have to.

[Chris]

I didn't care for the way the poll was set up--just yes or no.

Food stamp recipients usually are the working poor. Others are people who can't work for various reasons. Some are children. Some are disabled. Some are parents with kids who would need childcare to do community service.

If employers paid living wages, there would be little need for food stamps. As it is, food stamps are really a subsidy to employers. We taxpayers pay their employees so they won't have to.

Well that is what discussion is for. And the OP clarified " Think of work in terms of community service of some sort. If a person is able, should he or she have to work in return for food stamps?"

[Dr. Who]

I don't know why the OP restricts the concept of workfare to food stamps, since most food stamp recipients already work. How about workfare for able bodied welfare recipients? Aren't there jobs that currently aren't being done because the various state and municipal authorities don't have the funds to hire people? I'm thinking in terms of jobs like painting run down inner city schools, municipal buildings etc. Cleaning up school yards after recess and after school. I don't think these types of jobs require extra supervision, since there are admin and janitorial staff who can keep an eye on what is being done, and if someone is not performing, all they have to do is make a note. Work can be allocated according to the level of skill. You would also have to keep in mind minimum wage requirements. No state or municipality would want to be accused of promoting indentured servitude or slave labor. Thus the work hours would be equal to monthly benefit/min wage per hour.

[Bumpkin]

Well that is what discussion is for. And the OP clarified " Think of work in terms of community service of some sort. If a person is able, should he or she have to work in return for food stamps?"

I was under the impression that he meant able-bodied persons. Someone could be able-bodied and unable to participate in community service.

Also, it costs money to administer community service projects. So that adds to the cost of food stamps.

I think it's time to stop demeaning food stamp recipients and start demeaning employers who made such programs necessary.

[strollingbonez]

dont most food stamps go to single moms or children? do you want sweat shops for them?

[Chris]

dont most food stamps go to single moms or children? do you want sweat shops for them?

Where'd you come up with such a foolish idea?

[Bumpkin]

Should corporation CEOs do community service in return for corporate welfare? Should farmers and ranchers do community service in exchange for farm subsidies?

And here's my favorite: Should people who get special tax breaks for having a mortgage be required to do community service for the cut in their taxes that people without mortgages don't get?

[Bumpkin]

Where'd you come up with such a foolish idea?

Instead of calling the idea foolish, explain how your idea is nothing like a sweat shop for single moms with children.

And while you are at it, will you comment on the several points I made?

[Dr. Who]

dont most food stamps go to single moms or children? do you want sweat shops for them?That's why I tend to disagree with requiring special work for food stamps. Food stamps are a nutritional supplement benefit. I'd rather see workfare for welfare recipients who are able bodied.

[Ravi]

Many food stamp recipients already work. Many at Walmart.

[Ravi]

Should corporation CEOs do community service in return for corporate welfare? Should farmers and ranchers do community service in exchange for farm subsidies?

And here's my favorite: Should people who get special tax breaks for having a mortgage be required to do community service for the cut in their taxes that people without mortgages don't get?

Yes. Yes. and Yes!

[Bumpkin]

Corporations that sell food benefit more from food stamps than the recipients. I think it would be better if food stamps had restrictions on what could be bought with them the way WIC does.

Try that idea out on Coca Cola, Hershey, and Frito-Lay.

[Venus]

Many food stamp recipients already work. Many at Walmart.


Links

[Dr. Who]

Many food stamp recipients already work. Many at Walmart. Plus the benefit is worth only about $134/month. How much work would you expect for that. At minimum wage of $7.25/hour, that works out to roughly 4.62 hours per month. Hardly worth the time or effort to organize.

[nic34]

I would expect that we put into them what they put into us. Like its my fault and thus responsibility to take care of people with MS... Sorry...not my responsibility....

Then you don't deserve to live in a civilized society. You are free to stop paying any taxes and go live in ....... where you don't have to be responsible for anyone....

[Chris]

I don't know why the OP restricts the concept of workfare to food stamps, since most food stamp recipients already work. How about workfare for able bodied welfare recipients? Aren't there jobs that currently aren't being done because the various state and municipal authorities don't have the funds to hire people? I'm thinking in terms of jobs like painting run down inner city schools, municipal buildings etc. Cleaning up school yards after recess and after school. I don't think these types of jobs require extra supervision, since there are admin and janitorial staff who can keep an eye on what is being done, and if someone is not performing, all they have to do is make a note. Work can be allocated according to the level of skill. You would also have to keep in mind minimum wage requirements. No state or municipality would want to be accused of promoting indentured servitude or slave labor. Thus the work hours would be equal to monthly benefit/min wage per hour.

OK, work more.

But I do on agree on the bureaucracy required to support such a program. It was shot down well for this reason by patrick in the second post.

The idea was the pay was food stamps.

[Agravan]

Plus the benefit is worth only about $134/month. How much work would you expect for that. At minimum wage of $7.25/hour, that works out to roughly 4.62 hours per week. Hardly worth the time or effort to organize.

Not very good at Math are you, Who?
7.25*4.62 = 33.50
134/7.25 = 18.48 hours or roughly 2 8-hour days.
a lot can be done in two days.

[Bumpkin]

Links
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/the-facts-on-snap-part-2-snap-supports-work/

[Chris]

Corporations that sell food benefit more from food stamps than the recipients. I think it would be better if food stamps had restrictions on what could be bought with them the way WIC does.

Try that idea out on Coca Cola, Hershey, and Frito-Lay.

Agree with that, such social welfare program are a form of corny capitalism. The wealth is redistributed to the poor who must spend it on food, clothing, shelter, thereby in effect redistributing it to big business. Liberal socialism has the same effect as conservative socialism, that is, subsidies, bail outs, regulations that favor big business directly.

[Dr. Who]

Not very good at Math are you, Who?
7.25*4.62 = 33.50
134/7.25 = 18.48 hours or roughly 2 8-hour days.
a lot can be done in two days.

18.48 hours divided by 4 weeks = 4.62 hours per week. My math skills are fine Agravan. Whether you demand all of the time all at once or 4.62 hours a week, it's still not worth the bureaucratic cost of organizing and administering it. The civil servants who would administer the program would be making many times that hourly rate, so it could conceivably cost more money to run than it would save.

[Chris]

Then you don't deserve to live in a civilized society. You are free to stop paying any taxes and go live in ....... where you don't have to be responsible for anyone....

Seems to me you're begging the question here, just what is the meaning of civilized society.

[Agravan]

18.48 hours divided by 4 weeks = 4.62 hours per week. My math skills are fine Agravan. Whether you demand all of the time all at once or 4.62 hours a week, it's still not worth the bureaucratic cost of organizing and administering it. The civil servants who would administer the program would be making many times that hourly rate, so it could conceivably cost more money to run than it would save.
I stand corrected then. When your post basically implied that $134 equals 4.62 hours, it did not say per month. Still, getting people to do some service for a couple of days a month could be handled with existing personnel.

[nic34]

Seems to me you're begging the question here, just what is the meaning of civilized society.

If you have to ask that , then you don't get the whole IDEA of the United States of America and the principals on which it was founded.

(See GB, France, Spain, Italy, etc. ca. 1600 - 1800)

[Venus]

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/the-facts-on-snap-part-2-snap-supports-work/


Thanks for the link, I'm sure marie thanks you as well.

You wouldn't also happen to have one for marie's walmart comment would you?

[Chris]

If you have to ask that , then you don't get the whole IDEA of the United States of America and the principals on which it was founded.

(See GB, France, Spain, Italy, etc. ca. 1600 - 1800)

That's what I said your argument presumes, that the idea is compatible with your progressive views. That shouldn't be begged but established by you.

[Dr. Who]

I stand corrected then. When your post basically implied that $134 equals 4.62 hours, it did not say per month. Still, getting people to do some service for a couple of days a month could be handled with existing personnel.It's the government bureaucracy that will cost. No government can simply implement something like this without keeping track of hours, performance or lack thereof and remedies for non-performance. Then there would be an appeal process for cessation of benefits for non-performance etc. etc. Now you have an entirely new government department just to administer this aspect of the food stamp program.

[Chris]

It's the government bureaucracy that will cost. No government can simply implement something like this without keeping track of hours, performance or lack thereof and remedies for non-performance. Then there would be an appeal process for cessation of benefits for non-performance etc. etc. Now you have an entirely new government department just to administer this aspect of the food stamp program.

Just the same as a new department was needed to distribute and monitor food stamps. Recursive.

[Bumpkin]

I can think of 11 million of them that cam be made available ? Can't you

I can't. Where are those jobs?

[Agravan]

I can't. Where are those jobs?

Being held by illegals...:facepalm:

[nic34]

Being held by illegals...:facepalm:

So they all have jobs? Kids too?

Now THAT'S work ethic!

[Bumpkin]

Agree with that, such social welfare program are a form of corny capitalism. The wealth is redistributed to the poor who must spend it on food, clothing, shelter, thereby in effect redistributing it to big business. Liberal socialism has the same effect as conservative socialism, that is, subsidies, bail outs, regulations that favor big business directly.

I don't understand what you mean by "liberal socialism" and "conservative socialism." Why are you attaching those terms to different programs?

[Bumpkin]

Thanks for the link, I'm sure marie thanks you as well.

You wouldn't also happen to have one for marie's walmart comment would you?

There is no reason to doubt that plenty of Walmart employees get food stamps. They work for very low wages. Most people who get food stamps work.

[Venus]

There is no reason to doubt that plenty of Walmart employees get food stamps. They work for very low wages. Most people who get food stamps work.


that's a, no.

[Bumpkin]

Being held by illegals...:facepalm:

Then they aren't available. How would you make them available?

[nic34]

Bumpkin:

He thinks bail outs of human beings in an unfortunate situation is "liberal", and bail outs of banks and corporations is "conservative".

Shows how much our political thinking has devolved.....

[Agravan]

So they all have jobs? Kids too?

Now THAT'S work ethic!
where did you get the inference that said that every illegal was working? Quite a leap there, but then, you are adept at that.

[Agravan]

Then they aren't available. How would you make them available?

Deport, deport, deport.

[Chris]

I don't understand what you mean by "liberal socialism" and "conservative socialism." Why are you attaching those terms to different programs?

The proper term is social-democratic socialism vs conservative socialism. I suggest Hans-Hermann Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (http://mises.org/etexts/SocCap.pdf) for a full explication.


Both types of socialism, to be sure, derive from the same ideological sources.1 Both are
egalitarian in motivation, at least in theory,2 and both have essentially the same ultimate goal: the abolishment of
capitalism as a social system based on private ownership and the establishment of a new society, characterized
by brotherly solidarity and the eradication of scarcity; a society in which everyone is paid “according to his
needs.”

I did so for the very reason I gave in the post you responded to.

[Agravan]

Bumpkin:

He thinks bail outs of human beings in an unfortunate situation is "liberal", and bail outs of banks and corporations is "conservative".

Shows how much our political thinking has devolved.....
It was your messiah that bailed out the banks and unions.
It would have made better sense to use that trillion dollars to pay off or refinance mortgages instead of banks.

[Bumpkin]

Bumpkin:

He thinks bail outs of human beings in an unfortunate situation is "liberal", and bail outs of banks and corporations is "conservative".

Shows how much our political thinking has devolved.....

If that's the case, I think he's confused.

[Bumpkin]

Deport, deport, deport.

Explain the deportation program. How will you go about it? How much will it cost? What effect would it have on the US economy?

[Chris]

If that's the case, I think he's confused.

Again, unable to argue the message, you argue the messenger. You wouldn't by any chance be a liberal, would you?

[Ravi]

Again, unable to argue the message, you argue the messenger. You wouldn't by any chance be a liberal, would you?

He said if that's the case. Having trouble reading today?

[Chris]

He said if that's the case. Having trouble reading today?

He also said "I think he's confused." Having trouble reading today?

[Bumpkin]

It was your messiah that bailed out the banks and unions.
It would have made better sense to use that trillion dollars to pay off or refinance mortgages instead of banks.

Most conservatives I know claim that President Obama is the messiah of liberals and Democrats. So I assume you are referring to President Obama.

Do you realize that was Bush's program being implemented?

[Agravan]

Most conservatives I know claim that President Obama is the messiah of liberals and Democrats. So I assume you are referring to President Obama.

Do you realize that was Bush's program being implemented?

Bush was a liberal

[Bumpkin]

Again, unable to argue the message, you argue the messenger. You wouldn't by any chance be a liberal, would you?

You did not explain what you meant. You did link to a long article that I don't intend to read. I doubt it would explain what you meant by "conservative socialism" and "liberal socialism." I say that because the passage you excerpted did not explain what you meant.

So please, explain what you mean by the two terms.

[Bumpkin]

Bush was a liberal

So I've heard from conservatives. And that's pretty funny.

But that's beside the point. You blamed President Obama for something someone else did. Why didn't you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[Ravi]

He also said "I think he's confused." Having trouble reading today?
:rolleyes: Poor you.

[Chris]

Agree with that, such social welfare program are a form of corny capitalism. The wealth is redistributed to the poor who must spend it on food, clothing, shelter, thereby in effect redistributing it to big business. Liberal socialism has the same effect as conservative socialism, that is, subsidies, bail outs, regulations that favor big business directly.

Uh, bumpkin, this is the explanation I gave of the two terms. It was based in part on what you'd said preceding. You even commented on it, forget?

[Chris]

:rolleyes: Poor you.

I'm not poor, not rich, but not poor. So why you making things up, just a bad habit?

[Chris]

You did not explain what you meant. You did link to a long article that I don't intend to read. I doubt it would explain what you meant by "conservative socialism" and "liberal socialism." I say that because the passage you excerpted did not explain what you meant.

So please, explain what you mean by the two terms.


I reference Hoppe's book because I thought you were actually interested in what the terms mean, you asked afterall.

[Bumpkin]

Uh, bumpkin, this is the explanation I gave of the two terms. It was based in part on what you'd said preceding. You even commented on it, forget?

I'm trying to make sense of it. That's why I asked. The passage you quoted listed examples of "liberal socialism" and "conservative socialism." I'd like a definition instead of examples.

[Bumpkin]

I reference Hoppe's book because I thought you were actually interested in what the terms mean, you asked afterall.

I'm not about to read a book to get a definition of some terms. You could give the definition. Can't you?

Are you saying that diverting tax dollars to business is conservative socialism and diverting tax dollars to those in need in liberal socialism?

Is one better than the other?

[Chris]

I'm trying to make sense of it. That's why I asked. The passage you quoted listed examples of "liberal socialism" and "conservative socialism." I'd like a definition instead of examples.

Given my earlier posted explanation and next posted definition citing Hoppe, what exactly are you confused about?



See next post where you ask a specific question and I answer it.

[Chris]

I'm not about to read a book to get a definition of some terms. You could give the definition. Can't you?

Are you saying that diverting tax dollars to business is conservative socialism and diverting tax dollars to those in need in liberal socialism?

Is one better than the other?

I cited a passage from the book for you. It gave definition. My earlier post did as well.

OK, so now a specific question:


Are you saying that diverting tax dollars to business is conservative socialism and diverting tax dollars to those in need in liberal socialism?

Yes. Based on your post, #85 above, where you said "Corporations that sell food benefit more from food stamps than the recipients." Both may well have the best of intentions, protectionism US business, helping the needy, both, one directly, one indirectly, end up maintaining the status quo or enriching the rich. The best crony capitalism money can buy from our corrupt government.

[Bumpkin]

I guess I just don't understand why it's important to label actions as "liberal socialism" and "conservative socialism." But since you did so, I'd say that liberal socialism is better because it helps those in need.

[Chris]

I guess I just don't understand why it's important to label actions as "liberal socialism" and "conservative socialism." But since you did so, I'd say that liberal socialism is better because it helps those in need.

How? Other than keeping them in poverty?

[Bumpkin]

How? Other than keeping them in poverty?

I know people who were on welfare and are no longer on welfare. One is a high ranking public official in a conservative county.

Welare does not keep people in poverty.


On the other hand, the welfare called mortgage interest deduction seems to keep people in debt. Is that a good thing?

[Bumpkin]

Are you saying that conservative socialism is good and liberal socialism is bad? if so, why didn't you say so at first?

[Chris]

I know people who were on welfare and are no longer on welfare. One is a high ranking public official in a conservative country.

Welare does not keep people in poverty.


On the other hand, the welfare called mortgage interest deduction seems to keep people in debt. Is that a good thing?

Was the liberal socialism causative, or just coincidental?

Mortgage interest deduction would be another example like food stamps. In one case the ultimate beneficiary is food corporations, here the housing and mortgage industries.

[Bumpkin]

Mortgage interest deduction would be another example like food stamps. In one case the ultimate beneficiary is food corporations, here the housing and mortgage industries.

So is that a good thing?

Actually, some people with mortgages benefit. The larger the mortgage, the more support they get from the taxpayers. Very small mortgages get no help at all because they are usually better off with a standard deduction.

People become dependent on the mortgage interest deduction--more than people get dependent on food stamps. You won't hear much of an uproar from the poor if you try to cut food stamps. The complaints come from liberals. But try to get rid of that mortgage interest deduction welfare, and you will be overwhelmed by the outcry from the middle class and from rich people even more.

I know some who think people should submit to drug testing for food stamps. How about making those who get the mortgage interest and corporate welfare submit to drug testing?

[Adelaide]

I know people who were on welfare and are no longer on welfare. One is a high ranking public official in a conservative county.

Welare does not keep people in poverty.


On the other hand, the welfare called mortgage interest deduction seems to keep people in debt. Is that a good thing?

There are some people who slip through the cracks of welfare programs and the workers meant to help them find suitable employment or help them gain skills so they can find suitable employment, and some of those people abuse the system (but they certainly aren't the majority). I would say that a vast majority of people who accept some form of welfare are terribly ashamed to be getting help from the government/taxpayers. They want to improve their lives and situations so they don't have to feel ashamed. One of my distant relatives was on food stamps and she practically wore disguises into the place where you collected the food in order to avoid being identified. Most people do not want to stay in poverty, and they do what they can to try and climb out.

[Chris]

So is that a good thing?

Actually, some people with mortgages benefit. The larger the mortgage, the more support they get from the taxpayers. Very small mortgages get no help at all because they are usually better off with a standard deduction.

People become dependent on the mortgage interest deduction--more than people get dependent on food stamps. You won't hear much of an uproar from the poor if you try to cut food stamps. The complaints come from liberals. But try to get rid of that mortgage interest deduction welfare, and you will be overwhelmed by the outcry from the middle class and from rich people even more.

I know some who think people should submit to drug testing for food stamps. How about making those who get the mortgage interest and corporate welfare submit to drug testing?

No, not a good thing for bottom line it's taking wealth from those who earn it and redistributing it to those who don't.

[nic34]

It was your messiah that bailed out the banks and unions.
It would have made better sense to use that trillion dollars to pay off or refinance mortgages instead of banks.

Dubya is not my "messiah"......

....and yes, it would have been better to help people that the banks ripped off. But again, the conservatives didn't support that.

Banks, and business first, people last.

[Chris]

Dubya is not my "messiah"......

....and yes, it would have been better to help people that the banks ripped off. But again, the conservatives didn't support that.

Banks, and business first, people last.


Banks, and business first, people last.

As opposed to government first, people last? The government to sells favors to the banks and big business?