the us house should be ashamed.

[J. J.]

It really depends on how the regulations are changed.   There was a lot of waste in the program.

Absolutely.  Cuts that eliminate waste are actually a good thing, because they make it easier to sustain political support for a program.  If the program is better administered, it often creates more benefit for fewer dollars.

You poor blind bastards, there is virtually no waste or corruption in these tiny programs for the needy - the waste and corruption in the military budget is far bigger than the entire budget for food stamps!

No, just an ex-caseworker who knows that, if he wanted to, he could apply and get about 2 months work of stamps legally, without violating the law, and even though his resource level is more than 10 times above the limit.

I just don't do it.

[Citizen James]

You poor blind bastards, there is virtually no waste or corruption in these tiny programs for the needy

However much I think we would all like that to be the case, it just isn't true. The sheer amount of waste in the US welfare system is just disgraceful... and the people that get hurt because of that are the people that need to use these services.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So?

Well, the problem is that though there is rampant waste in both welfare and defense; the waste in defense costs us far more money, and could be avoided with better oversight.

Or is cheating the system acceptable if you already have plenty of money?  I've seen the system in action.  The two things I learned from my stint as a contractor was a) a renewed respect for those who serve our nation in the armed forces - who were always polite and behaved in an honorable manner as far as I could tell; and b) a certain distaste for many of the contractors, many of whom were downright mercenary and often viewed our troops with a thinly veiled contempt - as little more than cogs in a machine that they could get wealthy tinkering with, even when things worked fine.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, the problem is that though there is rampant waste in both welfare and defense; the waste in defense costs us far more money, and could be avoided with better oversight.

True, I'm not disputing that, I just don't think it's relavent to whether or not certain welfare systems have a problem with waste. It's a problem that should certainly be dealt with though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Absolutely not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Out of interest, is there a system set up that makes it possible (or easy. Yes, that would be a better question) to report abuses by contractors or not?

[Hitchabrut]

Government is wasteful. That's why it needs to be cut. How many departments to we really need? What is the point of having so many secretaries work to achieve the same goals and to promote them by spending billions with redundant programs?

[John Dibble]

These workers of which you speak, at the middle and lower-milddle levels, pay virtually nothing in taxes.

Dazzleman is right that you know very little about the working world.

At my coop job I made $14.50/hr last semester and worked 40 hours a week - full time in other words. I got my paycheck every two weeks. Standard total deductions per paycheck was $240.66, and deductions paid last semester totalled $1696.54 - just one hundred dollars short of the amount it takes to pay for a semester of college tuition at Georgia Tech. If this was my full time job, I would be paying $6257.16 in taxes a year from my paycheck, and that does not include end of the year income taxes, sales tax, property tax(if I own property, and many middle class people do), and I'm sure theres more taxes I'm paying somewhere. Still think the middle class pays virtually nothing in taxes? Or, let me rephrase the question so you'll understand it - how many Thai hookers am I now unable to hire due to wages taken through tax?

[jimrtex]

Couple of things;

1. That this is the first thing they've thought about cutting is pretty disturbing, yes (someone said that in this thread but it was a few pages back and I can't remember who).

It was the House agriculture committee.   It would be more disturbing if they were proposing cutting spending outside their jurisdiction, though I am sure those were the first things they thought of.

The food stamp and other nutritional programs represent 60% of the annual budget under their jurisdiction ($51B of $85B).   Total proposed cuts over a 5-year period (FY06 to FY10) are $3.7B or about 0.9%.  Cuts in the food stamp program represent $844M or about 0.3%.

As entitlement program, the amount actually expended will vary based on the economy and numbers eligible, so the actual proposed cuts are in the eligibity of those who currently receive about 0.3% of the benefits (about 1.2% of recipients).

The changes are to eliminate food stamps to non-citizens who have been in the country less than 7 years (up from the current 5 years); and persons who have more than the threshold income (130% of the poverty level, or about $25,000 for a family of 4).

Note, most of this information was in the Reuters article that was cited in the thread starter, and the rest was readily available on the committee's or the USDA's site.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Corruption in the food stamp program has been reduced from 5% to 2.5%, primarily through adoption of electronic debit cards, replacing the old script.  

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting. Thanks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oddly enough... I've not actually read the first few posts in this thread; I was just chiming into the discussion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's good to hear

[MaC]

Social programs don't work.  Anyone who wants to argue can look at the hundreds of programs we have in place, yet we still have as large of a poverty rate as we do. 

[Citizen James]

Well, the problem is that though there is rampant waste in both welfare and defense; the waste in defense costs us far more money, and could be avoided with better oversight.

True, I'm not disputing that, I just don't think it's relavent to whether or not certain welfare systems have a problem with waste. It's a problem that should certainly be dealt with though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Absolutely not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Out of interest, is there a system set up that makes it possible (or easy. Yes, that would be a better question) to report abuses by contractors or not?

In theory there's a hotline.  In practice unless you have a smoking gun showing a major deliberate violation of law (rather than just gaming the system) or a transfer of sensitive information directly to hostile powers, they didn't seem to care much.

[dazzleman]

opebo, your knowledge of the job market and social conditions is stupendous, considering that you've never held down a job.  Very impressive.  You have me convinced.

Yes, my separation from the world of work allows me a much better viewpoint from which to analyse. 

Right.  It's very easy to analyze that which you cannot see and know nothing about.  Maybe you can make a living as a consultant to pay for your hookers once the trust fund runs dry, or if your parents leave their money to the cat foundation.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In theory there's a hotline.  In practice unless you have a smoking gun showing a major deliberate violation of law (rather than just gaming the system) or a transfer of sensitive information directly to hostile powers, they didn't seem to care much.

Ah. Not good, not good at all.

[opebo]

It really depends on how the regulations are changed.   There was a lot of waste in the program.

Absolutely.  Cuts that eliminate waste are actually a good thing, because they make it easier to sustain political support for a program.  If the program is better administered, it often creates more benefit for fewer dollars.

You poor blind bastards, there is virtually no waste or corruption in these tiny programs for the needy - the waste and corruption in the military budget is far bigger than the entire budget for food stamps!

No, just an ex-caseworker who knows that, if he wanted to, he could apply and get about 2 months work of stamps legally, without violating the law, and even though his resource level is more than 10 times above the limit.

I just don't do it.

Well, that is fine!  I'm all for redistributing as much as much as possible - it makes good economic sense.  It really is much, much better to give benefits to a few people who don't need it than to refrain from giving anyone that to which they are entitled.

I wouldn't even consider you 'stealing' a few months of food stamps (what is that, a few hundred dollars?!) to be worth policing - after all billions upon billions are stolen through the 'defense department'.

Government is wasteful. That's why it needs to be cut. How many departments to we really need? What is the point of having so many secretaries work to achieve the same goals and to promote them by spending billions with redundant programs?

Because it is far better to have these programs, even if they are wasteful, than not, for the great majority of people.  Better to 'waste' the money on at least making an attempt to ameliorate the miseries caused by the social heirarchy than to have it wasted on more yahts and mansions.

[opebo]

Social programs don't work.  Anyone who wants to argue can look at the hundreds of programs we have in place, yet we still have as large of a poverty rate as we do. 

Listen, you fake Democrat, why don't you get out of this party and into the Religious one?

Social programs within a capitalist society cannot 'fail' - their intent is not to eliminate poverty.  Such a thing is impossible as poverty is inherent in the capitalist heirarchy.  If someone has the power, and is rich, then someone else must be the subjugated poor.  Liberal social programs are merely an attempt to throw a few crumbs to those who are victimized by the owning class, to alleviate their miseries.

[minionofmidas]

Social programs don't work.  Anyone who wants to argue can look at the hundreds of programs we have in place, yet we still have as large of a poverty rate as we do. 

Listen, you fake Democrat, why don't you get out of this party and into the Religious one?

Uh, that's Milk and Cereal, ie he's really just a fake democrat so there's no point trying to insult him as a fake democrat.

[opebo]

Social programs don't work.  Anyone who wants to argue can look at the hundreds of programs we have in place, yet we still have as large of a poverty rate as we do. 

Listen, you fake Democrat, why don't you get out of this party and into the Religious one?

Uh, that's Milk and Cereal, ie he's really just a fake democrat so there's no point trying to insult him as a fake democrat.

Oh, thanks.. I didn't realize it was a Republican in disguise.

[MODU]

"Agriculture Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte defended the decision, saying only a sliver of food stamp spending was affected and, for the most part, the cuts would eliminate people not truly eligible."

If that part is true, then I have no problem with it.

[opebo]

"Agriculture Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte defended the decision, saying only a sliver of food stamp spending was affected and, for the most part, the cuts would eliminate people not truly eligible."

If that part is true, then I have no problem with it.

I'm sure a great many 'ineligable' people are going hungry, MODU.  Eligability is just an arbitrary formula, like the 'poverty rate'.  Both of course seriously understate the sufferings of the working class in America.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Most of the people who actually go on this sort of programme can hardly be described as working class

[opebo]

Most of the people who actually go on this sort of programme can hardly be described as working class

Of course they are, Al.  They are not owners, therefor they are workers.

[Democratic Hawk]

why should the poorest of americans pay for the gop's fiscal incompetence?

They shouldn't!

Dave

[John Dibble]

Most of the people who actually go on this sort of programme can hardly be described as working class

Of course they are, Al.  They are not owners, therefor they are workers.

They aren't workers if they don't have a job. The world isn't so simple as to be split into two groups.

Also it's not suprising that you seem to have ignored my rebuttle of your statement that the middle class doesn't pay much in taxes.

[opebo]

Most of the people who actually go on this sort of programme can hardly be described as working class

Of course they are, Al.  They are not owners, therefor they are workers.

They aren't workers if they don't have a job. The world isn't so simple as to be split into two groups.

A person is a member of the working-class if they need a job.  It is the lack of capital that makes them a worker.  It makes no difference whether they have a job or not - even if they have one they are likely to lose it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, because I didn't consider that all that much tax.  However, I have no objection to reducing what little tax the 'middle class' pays, as long as the revenue loss is made up by taxing the rich.  The main thing is to greatly increase government revenue for redistribution.

[John Dibble]

Most of the people who actually go on this sort of programme can hardly be described as working class

Of course they are, Al.  They are not owners, therefor they are workers.

They aren't workers if they don't have a job. The world isn't so simple as to be split into two groups.

A person is a member of the working-class if they need a job.  It is the lack of capital that makes them a worker.  It makes no difference whether they have a job or not - even if they have one they are likely to lose it.

Once again you show lack of understanding of the working world. How the hell would you know how likely someone is to lose a job? You don't even work.

And someone can't be a worker if they don't work - the very definition of a worker is a person who works.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, because I didn't consider that all that much tax.  However, I have no objection to reducing what little tax the 'middle class' pays, as long as the revenue loss is made up by taxing the rich.  The main thing is to greatly increase government revenue for redistribution.
[/quote]

You may not think it's much of a tax, but I could improve my situation a great deal with an extra $3000 a year. You like making blanket statements about things you have absolutely no experience in even when the people who actually do have experience in the matter tell you how wrong you are. You should seriously do yourself a favor and only talk about matters you know - prostitutes and Thailand. If anyone wants to know about those, they'll ask you, but if anyone wants to know about the working world you're the last person they should ask.

[opebo]

Most of the people who actually go on this sort of programme can hardly be described as working class

Of course they are, Al.  They are not owners, therefor they are workers.

They aren't workers if they don't have a job. The world isn't so simple as to be split into two groups.

A person is a member of the working-class if they need a job.  It is the lack of capital that makes them a worker.  It makes no difference whether they have a job or not - even if they have one they are likely to lose it.

Once again you show lack of understanding of the working world. How the hell would you know how likely someone is to lose a job? You don't even work.

Because people lose their jobs all the time, and in fact it is every corporations cherished goal to employ as few workers as possible to make X amount of profit.  In other words they are employing someone to search strenuously for a way to get rid of you, particularly if you make a decent wage or recieve benefits.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I used the term 'member of the working class', Dibble, not the term 'worker'.  Please read more carefully.  And anyway your objections are mere obfuscation, we both know the two classes of which I speak.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You may not think it's much of a tax, but I could improve my situation a great deal with an extra $3000 a year. You like making blanket statements about things you have absolutely no experience in even when the people who actually do have experience in the matter tell you how wrong you are.
[/quote]

You are always going on about 'experience'.  One doesn't need to be injured to know it is unpleasant.  Why should one need to have a job to observe that they are miserable positions within the capitalist heirarchy?

[John Dibble]

You are always going on about 'experience'.  One doesn't need to be injured to know it is unpleasant.  Why should one need to have a job to observe that they are miserable positions within the capitalist heirarchy?

I talk about experience because the crap you spout is in utter contradiction to that experience - from my position I'm able to observe the condition of the working world and those who live in it a hell of a lot better than you are. You isolate yourself from the working world, and can only say what it is like based on hearsay or what you make up. Do you honestly believe that your position allows you to better observe things? I can easily get the same information you can, but the information you can't get is the information I get by actually living in the working world. Honestly, hasn't it crossed your mind for an instant that all these working people telling you that you are wrong about their lives might mean that you really are wrong?