Food Stamps

[Indy Texas]

Food stamps are one of many examples of a liberal welfare regime fouling up anti-poverty efforts. And as Hatman mentioned, it gives the poor a special currency to use in a public space identifying them for all to see. To indulge in a little hyperbole, it symbolically hollers, "Look there everyone! That bloke is a failure to their family, disgrace to their country, and is probably into some pretty shady stuff. They are so dysfunctional that they cannot even get food without a handout. Hey you there, go get a job you ****ing parasite." And so on and so forth. Poor folk have enough to be stressed out about as it is without measures that shame them and treat them as totally untrustworthy being institutionalized.

I also agree with Snowstalker and TNF here. Give everyone a lump of money. Make it a universal system that is not structured in a way that drives wedges between people of different classes. Everyone pays in and then everyone receives benefits back. That way we are all interdependent with everyone contributing under an agreeable understanding that the scheme exists to help each of us equally.

Food stamps are an EBT system that use what looks and functions exactly like a debit card. You swipe it at the terminal, enter a PIN and the payment goes through. There's not some red light on the register that turns on and a voice that starts saying "THANK YOU FOR PAYING WITH FOOD STAMPS YOU MISERABLE PARASITIC URCHIN" (unless Ayn Rand's followers have their own supermarket chain now or something). No one is being "identified for all to see" as a food stamp recipient.

[Deus Naturae]

It's worth noting that, for many people, food stamps are already essentially a direct cash payment. Food is one of, if not the, highest spending priority for people so many food stamp recipients would be using what little money they have to purchase food, regardless. Food stamps simply allow them to direct money that would be spent on food to other areas.

[Mordecai]

Expand but also this:

I voted other, but I wouldn't mind some changes to the program to eliminate totally unhealthy options such as soda from the list of approved items in all jurisdictions.

This.

Instead of upping food stamps , up the minimum wage.

One of the most sensible answers. There's no point in having a job if it doesn't even pay the rent or put food on the table.

[Redalgo]

Food stamps are an EBT system that use what looks and functions exactly like a debit card. You swipe it at the terminal, enter a PIN and the payment goes through.

Could of sworn I'd seen a paper form of payment used before. I'm honestly pretty surprised.

[IceSpear]

Food stamps are an EBT system that use what looks and functions exactly like a debit card. You swipe it at the terminal, enter a PIN and the payment goes through.

Could of sworn I'd seen a paper form of payment used before. I'm honestly pretty surprised.

You must be recalling from the 80s...

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Expand, but cut unemployment benefits.

So let them eat, but not pay the rent. That makes sense.

I would not have unemployment benefits for as long as we're having them, yes. If a person can't find a job in a year, they should probably get a job that's below their qualifications unfortunately.

There are those who can't find a job in a year even below their qualifications.

I do agree we need to ask whether continually extending unemployment benefits are the way to go, or we need to rethink the program to make it more conducive to people finding jobs, but I don't think just cutting the benefits makes sense with the long-term unemployment problem we have.

[DC Al Fine]

Expand, but cut unemployment benefits.

So let them eat, but not pay the rent. That makes sense.

I would not have unemployment benefits for as long as we're having them, yes. If a person can't find a job in a year, they should probably get a job that's below their qualifications unfortunately.

There are those who can't find a job in a year even below their qualifications.

I do agree we need to ask whether continually extending unemployment benefits are the way to go, or we need to rethink the program to make it more conducive to people finding jobs, but I don't think just cutting the benefits makes sense with the long-term unemployment problem we have.

To add to what Shua, for a large portion of the long term unemployed, no amount of unemployment benefits is going to help with a long term solution. The dole is a good solution for people who live in a reasonably prosperous area and/or have in demand skills. Those people just need some cash for a few months until the next job comes along.

For people who live in an economically depressed area or are trained in a dying industry, there needs to be something more. "The next job" isn't going to come along once the worst of the recession is over. Retraining, subsidizing moves and economic development initiatives are all better options than just extending unemployment benefits for a few months for the long term unemployed.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Reducing unemployment benefits probably does make sense in some cases where they are getting enough that it is a disincentive for them to find work - like if they made enough in their previous job that the proportion of that they are receiving now is close to or even above lower-paying job wages. I don't think that's the case for most people though.

[Indy Texas]

Expand, but cut unemployment benefits.

So let them eat, but not pay the rent. That makes sense.

I would not have unemployment benefits for as long as we're having them, yes. If a person can't find a job in a year, they should probably get a job that's below their qualifications unfortunately.

There are those who can't find a job in a year even below their qualifications.

I do agree we need to ask whether continually extending unemployment benefits are the way to go, or we need to rethink the program to make it more conducive to people finding jobs, but I don't think just cutting the benefits makes sense with the long-term unemployment problem we have.

I think it is fairly reasonable to say that someone who is aged 50 or over and hasn't had a job in more than 6 months will probably never find another job in their lifetime. If they do, it certainly won't be one that would allow them to live without some sort of government assistance. It would probably be better to gently nudge them into Social Security early and reduce or eliminate the penalties that would ordinarily come from collecting benefits before 65.

[Del Tachi]

Reduce spending and give the program to the states through a block-grant along with federally-enforced eligibility and minimum assistance criteria.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

ITT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I

[Kushahontas]

expand (normal)

[Indy Texas]

ITT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I

I think "Soup Is Good Food" is more appropriate.

[⛄]

Cut it entirely
... and implement a UBI.

[Suburbia]

It should be reduced at some point. At times, some people MAY it for booze, etc. I'm not saying all, but it should be reduced at some point, especially if you are using it for more than 2 years.

[AggregateDemand]

Cut it entirely
... and implement a UBI.

[AggregateDemand]

What kind of person denies food to the poor and needy?

What kind of person taxes the lower-middle class out of the economy and then gives them food stamps as a consolation prize?

[fartboy]

Keep it the same.

[Joshgreen]

What kind of person denies food to the poor and needy?

What kind of person taxes the lower-middle class out of the economy and then gives them food stamps as a consolation prize?

Stop setting up the straw men, bro.

[Ban my account ffs!]

What kind of person denies food to the poor and needy?

What kind of person taxes the lower-middle class out of the economy and then gives them food stamps as a consolation prize?

You've got it so wrong.  It's actually that lower-middle class people are worked very hard... and then are paid an insufficient wage to cover their basic life needs.

This is a failure of the system. 

Now of course I would agree if you want to abolish taxes on the lower middle class, recoup that funding from the upper middle class and wealthy, and then shower the lower middle class with consolation prizes like food stamps and housing aid and daycare subsidies and regulations that ensure paid vacation and benefits.

but something tells me you would just give the lower middle class $50 in tax savings and then cut $150 worth of food stamps and call it good... while giving the top 1% $1 million in tax cuts.

[AggregateDemand]

Stop setting up the straw men, bro.

Fwd to Flo. My argument is legitimate. His is imaginary.

[AggregateDemand]

You've got it so wrong.  It's actually that lower-middle class people are worked very hard... and then are paid an insufficient wage to cover their basic life needs.

This is a failure of the system. 

Now of course I would agree if you want to abolish taxes on the lower middle class, recoup that funding from the upper middle class and wealthy, and then shower the lower middle class with consolation prizes like food stamps and housing aid and daycare subsidies and regulations that ensure paid vacation and benefits.

but something tells me you would just give the lower middle class $50 in tax savings and then cut $150 worth of food stamps and call it good... while giving the top 1% $1 million in tax cuts.

If someone is working, you're not showering them with consolation prizes. You're making up the difference between the market-price for labor and a dignified standard of living.

I'm speaking specifically of the people who have joined the ranks of the poverty-stricken because the phase-out of benefits compels them not to work. Then we throw alms at them to satisfy our moral vanity. That's a huge waste of our money and their lives. When we encourage them not to work, we actually undermine the fiscal integrity of other programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Why do you think people rant against the US welfare state? It is a human rights catastrophe. The electorate know little of economics so they incorrectly believe that our programs are underfunded. They raise taxes and expand our welfare state. Our social problems become more acute.

Americans are not stingy when it comes to social spending. We are stupid, which is twice as bad.

[Cory]

Other: institute a universal basic income program.

[Indy Texas]

Reduce. Have programs encouraging people to work so to gradually reduce the spending on food stamps. Eliminating it entirely is not a good idea, but obviously having food stamps is not a good thing and we shouldn't encourage it to be good or normal. 

You assume no one on food stamps works and you assume the sort of jobs they have or could get are jobs that pay enough for them to buy food without help.

[tik 🪀✨]

poop people

racism