Author Topic: Woman An Authority On What Shouldn't Be In Poor People’s Grocery Carts-The Onion  (Read 64722 times)

warfreak2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Location: UK
    • Music by me
I didn't understand the distinction made here: "...the entity on the other end of the contract, not the person who exchanged the contract with you" - don't know if it is important to the rest of the point or not.
I'll try to explain by way of example. If Annie buys a bond from Brad, then sells the bond to Chloe, Chloe's rights to receive the payouts from that bond are provided for by Brad (the entity on the other end of the contract), not by Annie (the person who exchanged the contract with her).

Suppose the contract mandates that the holder uses part of that payout to make a charitable donation. Now when Chloe buys the bond from Annie, she has to make that donation - and she agrees to make that donation by buying the contract, she implicitly agrees that this contractual obligation is fair. Chloe bought the contract from Annie, and therefore Brad forces Chloe to make a donation. But this isn't Brad interfering with a private exchange between Annie and Chloe; rather, it's Brad enforcing the terms of a mutually-agreed contract between Brad and Chloe.

What I'm arguing is that when you receive money for your labour, tax levied on that income isn't interference in a private exchange between you and your employer, it's an enforcement of the money-contract between you and the government which issued it.

It's more of a thought experiment than a philosophy, really. The logical step which you probably disagree with (and I disagree with, too) is that mutually-agreed contractual obligations are fair by definition. Jamesqf proposed the (paraphrased) resolution that people are forced to use money due to lack of alternatives, and therefore don't meaningfully consent to the terms of the contract. I don't think I agree with that either, there's barter and community currencies, not to mention gold and bitcoin; some people do live without using their national currency.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2014, 11:28:23 AM by warfreak2 »

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
^
Thanks, that A/B/C explanation makes perfect sense.  And yes, we both disagree with the "...fair by definition" part. 

People sometimes make mistakes.  People make laws.  Thus sometimes people make mistaken laws - history is replete with examples....  Of course, not everyone agrees on which laws are correct and which are mistakes.  Ah, diversity of opinion - where would discussion be without it?

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9922
  • Registered member
In the early 90s, before EBT cards, I was a letter carrier and I occasionally carried mail in poor areas. What I really hated was delivering food stamps and a cable bill to the same residence on the same day. You can imagine the calculus I was doing... "Wait a minute, if this Joe didn't have cable then this Joe wouldn't need food stamps. In reality taxes are not feeding this Joe, they are simply subsidizing his goddamn cable bill...."

Right, but unless you completely regulate everyone's behavior and spending ("You may not spend more than $X on a cell phone, you may not have cable TV, etc."), then you have to just accept this.

Just like the person using their tax refund they got from a large mortgage interest deduction going to put it as a down payment on an SUV.  You could say "In reality taxes are not helping or encouraging Joe's home ownership, they are simply subsidizing his goddamn SUV...."

Short of telling everyone exactly when and how to spend their money, that's what happens because everyone gets benefits in some way shape or form.

Good point.

Except I still distinguish the two on the basis of intended incentive (whether or not you agree with the incentive).  Home mortgage deduction incentivizes home ownership, so if Joe buys a house I'm fine with him using the money he gets back for anything -- he was compensated for taking the action the lawmakers wanted him to take.

On the other hand, food stamps are not supposed to incentive anything.  They are supposed to feed people and support upward mobility (starving people will have a hard time finding work paying a living wage).  So it's fair to ask that people use the benefit for that upward mobility.  Obviously it's a tricky question and I do not have a particular suggestion for how to get people to achieve this goal.  But that doesn't mean I have to like it when people use their food stamp windfall to pay a cable bill.
Where did you get THAT idea?  It is hard to qualify for food stamps as an individual unless you are over 55-65 (depends on the state) or have a child.  They want to have children have sufficient nutrients.   Food stamps and other welfarish programs make it hard to get off (ever since Clinton).  My grandmother was on welfare after she divorced my alcoholic grandfather.  Unlike now, she was able to get an education which allowed for a middle class job while on welfare.  Now any education knocks you off (at least in my state).  I will say that I do like that NY (unlike Ca, to my knowledge), includes daycare in your "required" expences calculator to decide if you are eligible for food stamps, though personally I'd like there to be more low income subsidizes for daycare to increase the likeliness of working.

Wut?  I plug in 30 year old unemployed male with $500/mo room rental gets $160 - $180 in Food Stamps each month (CA).  Making $12k/year he'd get $30 - $40 in Food Stamps each month.  How is that "hard to qualify"?

https://www.mybenefitscalwin.org/web/consortium/home?p_p_id=welcome_WAR_calwinportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&_welcome_WAR_calwinportlet_action=amIEligibleAnonymous
« Last Edit: May 14, 2014, 11:55:47 AM by dragoncar »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
In the early 90s, before EBT cards, I was a letter carrier and I occasionally carried mail in poor areas. What I really hated was delivering food stamps and a cable bill to the same residence on the same day. You can imagine the calculus I was doing... "Wait a minute, if this Joe didn't have cable then this Joe wouldn't need food stamps. In reality taxes are not feeding this Joe, they are simply subsidizing his goddamn cable bill...."

Right, but unless you completely regulate everyone's behavior and spending ("You may not spend more than $X on a cell phone, you may not have cable TV, etc."), then you have to just accept this.

Just like the person using their tax refund they got from a large mortgage interest deduction going to put it as a down payment on an SUV.  You could say "In reality taxes are not helping or encouraging Joe's home ownership, they are simply subsidizing his goddamn SUV...."

Short of telling everyone exactly when and how to spend their money, that's what happens because everyone gets benefits in some way shape or form.

Good point.

Except I still distinguish the two on the basis of intended incentive (whether or not you agree with the incentive).  Home mortgage deduction incentivizes home ownership, so if Joe buys a house I'm fine with him using the money he gets back for anything -- he was compensated for taking the action the lawmakers wanted him to take.

On the other hand, food stamps are not supposed to incentive anything.  They are supposed to feed people and support upward mobility (starving people will have a hard time finding work paying a living wage).  So it's fair to ask that people use the benefit for that upward mobility.  Obviously it's a tricky question and I do not have a particular suggestion for how to get people to achieve this goal.  But that doesn't mean I have to like it when people use their food stamp windfall to pay a cable bill.
Where did you get THAT idea?  It is hard to qualify for food stamps as an individual unless you are over 55-65 (depends on the state) or have a child.  They want to have children have sufficient nutrients.   Food stamps and other welfarish programs make it hard to get off (ever since Clinton).  My grandmother was on welfare after she divorced my alcoholic grandfather.  Unlike now, she was able to get an education which allowed for a middle class job while on welfare.  Now any education knocks you off (at least in my state).  I will say that I do like that NY (unlike Ca, to my knowledge), includes daycare in your "required" expences calculator to decide if you are eligible for food stamps, though personally I'd like there to be more low income subsidizes for daycare to increase the likeliness of working.

Wut?  I plug in 30 year old unemployed male with $500/mo room rental gets $160 - $180 in Food Stamps each month (CA).  Making $12k/year he'd get $30 - $40 in Food Stamps each month.  How is that "hard to qualify"?

https://www.mybenefitscalwin.org/web/consortium/home?p_p_id=welcome_WAR_calwinportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&_welcome_WAR_calwinportlet_action=amIEligibleAnonymous
And if you have no income, you should be getting a limited amount of food stamps but $40 is pretty tight when I was in SJ, Ca 4 years ago for one person/week.  I don't think you are living high on the hog with that.  Hard to qualify with a job, or more accurately, you get very little.  And, technically someone renting a room has to prove that they are not part of the "household" they live in so that they don't have to include those people's income. 

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9922
  • Registered member
In the early 90s, before EBT cards, I was a letter carrier and I occasionally carried mail in poor areas. What I really hated was delivering food stamps and a cable bill to the same residence on the same day. You can imagine the calculus I was doing... "Wait a minute, if this Joe didn't have cable then this Joe wouldn't need food stamps. In reality taxes are not feeding this Joe, they are simply subsidizing his goddamn cable bill...."

Right, but unless you completely regulate everyone's behavior and spending ("You may not spend more than $X on a cell phone, you may not have cable TV, etc."), then you have to just accept this.

Just like the person using their tax refund they got from a large mortgage interest deduction going to put it as a down payment on an SUV.  You could say "In reality taxes are not helping or encouraging Joe's home ownership, they are simply subsidizing his goddamn SUV...."

Short of telling everyone exactly when and how to spend their money, that's what happens because everyone gets benefits in some way shape or form.

Good point.

Except I still distinguish the two on the basis of intended incentive (whether or not you agree with the incentive).  Home mortgage deduction incentivizes home ownership, so if Joe buys a house I'm fine with him using the money he gets back for anything -- he was compensated for taking the action the lawmakers wanted him to take.

On the other hand, food stamps are not supposed to incentive anything.  They are supposed to feed people and support upward mobility (starving people will have a hard time finding work paying a living wage).  So it's fair to ask that people use the benefit for that upward mobility.  Obviously it's a tricky question and I do not have a particular suggestion for how to get people to achieve this goal.  But that doesn't mean I have to like it when people use their food stamp windfall to pay a cable bill.
Where did you get THAT idea?  It is hard to qualify for food stamps as an individual unless you are over 55-65 (depends on the state) or have a child.  They want to have children have sufficient nutrients.   Food stamps and other welfarish programs make it hard to get off (ever since Clinton).  My grandmother was on welfare after she divorced my alcoholic grandfather.  Unlike now, she was able to get an education which allowed for a middle class job while on welfare.  Now any education knocks you off (at least in my state).  I will say that I do like that NY (unlike Ca, to my knowledge), includes daycare in your "required" expences calculator to decide if you are eligible for food stamps, though personally I'd like there to be more low income subsidizes for daycare to increase the likeliness of working.

Wut?  I plug in 30 year old unemployed male with $500/mo room rental gets $160 - $180 in Food Stamps each month (CA).  Making $12k/year he'd get $30 - $40 in Food Stamps each month.  How is that "hard to qualify"?

https://www.mybenefitscalwin.org/web/consortium/home?p_p_id=welcome_WAR_calwinportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&_welcome_WAR_calwinportlet_action=amIEligibleAnonymous
And if you have no income, you should be getting a limited amount of food stamps but $40 is pretty tight when I was in SJ, Ca 4 years ago for one person/week.  I don't think you are living high on the hog with that.  Hard to qualify with a job, or more accurately, you get very little.  And, technically someone renting a room has to prove that they are not part of the "household" they live in so that they don't have to include those people's income.

Please, $30/mo buys me a pound of lentils a day.  But we weren't arguing the magnitude of the benefit, just how hard it is to get.  In CA it is really really easy, assuming you are low-income.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
In the early 90s, before EBT cards, I was a letter carrier and I occasionally carried mail in poor areas. What I really hated was delivering food stamps and a cable bill to the same residence on the same day. You can imagine the calculus I was doing... "Wait a minute, if this Joe didn't have cable then this Joe wouldn't need food stamps. In reality taxes are not feeding this Joe, they are simply subsidizing his goddamn cable bill...."

Right, but unless you completely regulate everyone's behavior and spending ("You may not spend more than $X on a cell phone, you may not have cable TV, etc."), then you have to just accept this.

Just like the person using their tax refund they got from a large mortgage interest deduction going to put it as a down payment on an SUV.  You could say "In reality taxes are not helping or encouraging Joe's home ownership, they are simply subsidizing his goddamn SUV...."

Short of telling everyone exactly when and how to spend their money, that's what happens because everyone gets benefits in some way shape or form.

Good point.

Except I still distinguish the two on the basis of intended incentive (whether or not you agree with the incentive).  Home mortgage deduction incentivizes home ownership, so if Joe buys a house I'm fine with him using the money he gets back for anything -- he was compensated for taking the action the lawmakers wanted him to take.

On the other hand, food stamps are not supposed to incentive anything.  They are supposed to feed people and support upward mobility (starving people will have a hard time finding work paying a living wage).  So it's fair to ask that people use the benefit for that upward mobility.  Obviously it's a tricky question and I do not have a particular suggestion for how to get people to achieve this goal.  But that doesn't mean I have to like it when people use their food stamp windfall to pay a cable bill.
Where did you get THAT idea?  It is hard to qualify for food stamps as an individual unless you are over 55-65 (depends on the state) or have a child.  They want to have children have sufficient nutrients.   Food stamps and other welfarish programs make it hard to get off (ever since Clinton).  My grandmother was on welfare after she divorced my alcoholic grandfather.  Unlike now, she was able to get an education which allowed for a middle class job while on welfare.  Now any education knocks you off (at least in my state).  I will say that I do like that NY (unlike Ca, to my knowledge), includes daycare in your "required" expences calculator to decide if you are eligible for food stamps, though personally I'd like there to be more low income subsidizes for daycare to increase the likeliness of working.

Wut?  I plug in 30 year old unemployed male with $500/mo room rental gets $160 - $180 in Food Stamps each month (CA).  Making $12k/year he'd get $30 - $40 in Food Stamps each month.  How is that "hard to qualify"?

https://www.mybenefitscalwin.org/web/consortium/home?p_p_id=welcome_WAR_calwinportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&_welcome_WAR_calwinportlet_action=amIEligibleAnonymous
And if you have no income, you should be getting a limited amount of food stamps but $40 is pretty tight when I was in SJ, Ca 4 years ago for one person/week.  I don't think you are living high on the hog with that.  Hard to qualify with a job, or more accurately, you get very little.  And, technically someone renting a room has to prove that they are not part of the "household" they live in so that they don't have to include those people's income.

Please, $30/mo buys me a pound of lentils a day.  But we weren't arguing the magnitude of the benefit, just how hard it is to get.  In CA it is really really easy, assuming you are low-income.
But people were complaining about the behavior of the poor person, as in they could afford X, Y and Z.  If they have no income, it is unlikely they can afford all of those things.  And just lentils is not a well balanced diet. 

bikebum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Location: Nor Cal
Where did you get THAT idea?  It is hard to qualify for food stamps as an individual unless you are over 55-65 (depends on the state) or have a child.  They want to have children have sufficient nutrients.   Food stamps and other welfarish programs make it hard to get off (ever since Clinton).  My grandmother was on welfare after she divorced my alcoholic grandfather.  Unlike now, she was able to get an education which allowed for a middle class job while on welfare.  Now any education knocks you off (at least in my state).  I will say that I do like that NY (unlike Ca, to my knowledge), includes daycare in your "required" expences calculator to decide if you are eligible for food stamps, though personally I'd like there to be more low income subsidizes for daycare to increase the likeliness of working.

I think the reason you don't get welfare if you are a student is there are other funding sources (like the Pell Grant and subsidized loans) to pay for the same things for low-income students.

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5960
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
anecdotes
So you agree that you have exactly one murky data point that's (at best) tangentially related to your view that education does not work, and that's enough for you to declare the best social policy, even when you're provided with meaningful statistical evidence?

mnstachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 23
You know the thing that gets me most with all this? After running the numbers earlier... the reality of the SNAP program is thus:

The average contribution of 10˘ a day out of the typical working mustachian taxpayer's paycheck currently helps to feed over 46 million people, day in, day out... even despite the corruption and poor food choices.

Think about this. You give the government a dime every day, and that dime helps to keep over 46 million people from going to bed hungry in the United States. That's $3 a month out of your budget.

Please, explain to me like I'm five years old, how this is not the living embodiment of badass.

You're absolutely right. It's an incredibly badass program and one that I feel good paying for. It's interesting how much of the forest is missed for the trees when it comes to people's perceptions of government spending. If we turned the microscope on excess military spending, I bet people would feel a lot better about subsidizing the poor guy in the grocery line who gets a Twix and a Snapple after a hard day of minimum wage work.

Bakari

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oakland, CA
  • Veggie Powered Handyman
    • The Flamboyant Introvert
If we turned the microscope on excess military spending...

Seeing it from the inside... I can't even type... too depressing

However bad you guess it is from the outside, I absolutely guarantee you the reality is much much worse
... and I'm in the branch with by far the lowest budget...

hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
Except I still distinguish the two on the basis of intended incentive (whether or not you agree with the incentive).

Oh gosh, not to hear some conservatives tell it! Food stamps are incredibly incentivizing (for one to avoid getting a job and simply suck on the government teat).

But I think you make a valid point all the same, and in doing so not at all helping me resolve this very gray area for me! ;-)

Let me muddy the waters even further. Let's assume for just a moment that you work for SNAP and help shape policy, and new-fangled technology makes it possible to determine if an applicant for SNAP benefits currently pays for cable television when they apply. Do you....

1. Craft policy that ignores this
2. Craft policy that denies the application based on the fact that money clearly exists in the applicant's budget for nonessentials.

I don't want to sound like a total hardass here, and am in general a supporter of the social safety net. On the other hand abuse is abuse, and we all know that abuse exists to some degree. I would feel much better about SNAP if I felt those resources were more focused and concentrated on the truly needy rather than the truly needy and the not-as-needy that are making poor financial decisions.     

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Except I still distinguish the two on the basis of intended incentive (whether or not you agree with the incentive).

Oh gosh, not to hear some conservatives tell it! Food stamps are incredibly incentivizing (for one to avoid getting a job and simply suck on the government teat).

But I think you make a valid point all the same, and in doing so not at all helping me resolve this very gray area for me! ;-)

Let me muddy the waters even further. Let's assume for just a moment that you work for SNAP and help shape policy, and new-fangled technology makes it possible to determine if an applicant for SNAP benefits currently pays for cable television when they apply. Do you....

1. Craft policy that ignores this
2. Craft policy that denies the application based on the fact that money clearly exists in the applicant's budget for nonessentials.

I don't want to sound like a total hardass here, and am in general a supporter of the social safety net. On the other hand abuse is abuse, and we all know that abuse exists to some degree. I would feel much better about SNAP if I felt those resources were more focused and concentrated on the truly needy rather than the truly needy and the not-as-needy that are making poor financial decisions.   

Why should a single mom who gets food stamps for her kids, works a minimum wage job all day, and goes home tired not be allowed to watch TV?

Of course a cable subscription is irrelevant to her food stamps.

Or any other spending she chooses.

We provide a basic level of money for food.  Then let them make their own choices. 

Educate them.  But restrict them?  That's ridiculous.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9922
  • Registered member
Except I still distinguish the two on the basis of intended incentive (whether or not you agree with the incentive).

Oh gosh, not to hear some conservatives tell it! Food stamps are incredibly incentivizing (for one to avoid getting a job and simply suck on the government teat).

But I think you make a valid point all the same, and in doing so not at all helping me resolve this very gray area for me! ;-)

Let me muddy the waters even further. Let's assume for just a moment that you work for SNAP and help shape policy, and new-fangled technology makes it possible to determine if an applicant for SNAP benefits currently pays for cable television when they apply. Do you....

1. Craft policy that ignores this
2. Craft policy that denies the application based on the fact that money clearly exists in the applicant's budget for nonessentials.

I don't want to sound like a total hardass here, and am in general a supporter of the social safety net. On the other hand abuse is abuse, and we all know that abuse exists to some degree. I would feel much better about SNAP if I felt those resources were more focused and concentrated on the truly needy rather than the truly needy and the not-as-needy that are making poor financial decisions.   

Why should a single mom who gets food stamps for her kids, works a minimum wage job all day, and goes home tired not be allowed to watch TV?

Of course a cable subscription is irrelevant to her food stamps.

Or any other spending she chooses.

We provide a basic level of money for food.  Then let them make their own choices. 

Educate them.  But restrict them?  That's ridiculous.

Well that's just the question of "what is the minimum standard of living that we feel is acceptable in the world?"  I would not include cable television, although you could certainly make a practical argument for giving the masses their "bread and circuses".  But if you are not providing this minimum standard to every single citizen (like a citizens dividend or whatever it's called) then I think we should require repayment of benefits before additional consumption.  But this opens the issue of incentives again (why work at all if everything you earn just reduces your benefit by the exact same amount).  This is why I much prefer the citizens dividend concept (or whatever it's called -- basically everyone gets enough cash for the minimum standard and we don't judge).

hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
Except I still distinguish the two on the basis of intended incentive (whether or not you agree with the incentive).

Oh gosh, not to hear some conservatives tell it! Food stamps are incredibly incentivizing (for one to avoid getting a job and simply suck on the government teat).

But I think you make a valid point all the same, and in doing so not at all helping me resolve this very gray area for me! ;-)

Let me muddy the waters even further. Let's assume for just a moment that you work for SNAP and help shape policy, and new-fangled technology makes it possible to determine if an applicant for SNAP benefits currently pays for cable television when they apply. Do you....

1. Craft policy that ignores this
2. Craft policy that denies the application based on the fact that money clearly exists in the applicant's budget for nonessentials.

I don't want to sound like a total hardass here, and am in general a supporter of the social safety net. On the other hand abuse is abuse, and we all know that abuse exists to some degree. I would feel much better about SNAP if I felt those resources were more focused and concentrated on the truly needy rather than the truly needy and the not-as-needy that are making poor financial decisions.   

Why should a single mom who gets food stamps for her kids, works a minimum wage job all day, and goes home tired not be allowed to watch TV?

Of course a cable subscription is irrelevant to her food stamps.

Or any other spending she chooses.

We provide a basic level of money for food.  Then let them make their own choices. 

Educate them.  But restrict them?  That's ridiculous.

Not so ridiculous. Everyone who receives benefits of any sort must qualify for them first, so restrictions are already in place. What I am getting at are how restrictive are the qualifications. Rather than the working Mom you describe above, I'll give another example. Say an 18 year old male graduates from high school but has been unable to find work. Does that person qualify for food stamps?

I think the correct answer is it all depends based on their circumstances.

For if you had been talking about my son four months ago, that was exactly the position he was in. The caveat being he was living under his parents roof and no, I don't think he qualifies for food stamps one little bit!  ;-)

Your working Mom example above is a perfectly good real life scenario. No one would argue she doesn't deserve some down time in front of the tube. Watching absolutely free OTA broadcasts, just like the majority of us on these boards do, not cable TV. We all know that hard-working Mom cannot afford cable TV, and so I come back around to my original question. Where do you draw the line in regards to eligibility requirements for benefits? I don't think it is a black and white question.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
In my state (NC), food stamps eligibility is partially based on the household's available assets, so you could argue that they have an incentive on not saving anything.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
I don't want to sound like a total hardass here, and am in general a supporter of the social safety net. On the other hand abuse is abuse, and we all know that abuse exists to some degree. I would feel much better about SNAP if I felt those resources were more focused and concentrated on the truly needy rather than the truly needy and the not-as-needy that are making poor financial decisions.   

Why should a single mom who gets food stamps for her kids, works a minimum wage job all day, and goes home tired not be allowed to watch TV?

Of course a cable subscription is irrelevant to her food stamps.

Or any other spending she chooses.

We provide a basic level of money for food.  Then let them make their own choices. 

Educate them.  But restrict them?  That's ridiculous.

Well that's just the question of "what is the minimum standard of living that we feel is acceptable in the world?"  I would not include cable television, although you could certainly make a practical argument for giving the masses their "bread and circuses".  But if you are not providing this minimum standard to every single citizen (like a citizens dividend or whatever it's called) then I think we should require repayment of benefits before additional consumption.

I disagree.  I think there should be some choice and discretion, and not just a "you can only do preapproved 'minimum standard of living' activities".  You can get provided basic food, and then use the money you earn to buy cable tv, a cell phone, a meal out, whatever.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9922
  • Registered member
I don't want to sound like a total hardass here, and am in general a supporter of the social safety net. On the other hand abuse is abuse, and we all know that abuse exists to some degree. I would feel much better about SNAP if I felt those resources were more focused and concentrated on the truly needy rather than the truly needy and the not-as-needy that are making poor financial decisions.   

Why should a single mom who gets food stamps for her kids, works a minimum wage job all day, and goes home tired not be allowed to watch TV?

Of course a cable subscription is irrelevant to her food stamps.

Or any other spending she chooses.

We provide a basic level of money for food.  Then let them make their own choices. 

Educate them.  But restrict them?  That's ridiculous.

Well that's just the question of "what is the minimum standard of living that we feel is acceptable in the world?"  I would not include cable television, although you could certainly make a practical argument for giving the masses their "bread and circuses".  But if you are not providing this minimum standard to every single citizen (like a citizens dividend or whatever it's called) then I think we should require repayment of benefits before additional consumption.

I disagree.  I think there should be some choice and discretion, and not just a "you can only do preapproved 'minimum standard of living' activities".  You can get provided basic food, and then use the money you earn to buy cable tv, a cell phone, a meal out, whatever.

I like how you deleted the part where we agree

Elaine

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
  • Age: 36
  • Location: NYC
    • Small Things Good
I'm sure my mom would have looked bad when I was a kid but I didn't eat vegetables or fruit ever. Fresh, awesomely cooked, bleh! Best she could get away with was me eating pop tarts, apple juice, and spaghettio's.

You obviously weren't hungry enough.

Haha! I've often thought about this when people talk about how picky their kids are with food. We don't have kids, but when we do I think we will feed them the same healthy stuff that we eat, with occasional treats. And if they don't like it they don't have to eat it. They will, of course, eventually get hungry enough to gobble it up, whatever it is. I'm certain a kid will get hungry and eat before they experience any negative health effects. Anyone do this with their kids?

My parents did it with me. The only alternative was "if you don't like this then you can eat fruit". The effect: I was not traumatized, and I eat a huge variety of food. In fact, I'm a food writer. Thanks Mom and Dad!

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
I like how you deleted the part where we agree

Did I?  I disagree.  ;)

I didn't think we do agree on that.  I just removed a separate, second part of your post that goes on to talk about a different solution.  I was addressing the first part of your post.

/shrug
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9922
  • Registered member
I like how you deleted the part where we agree

Did I?  I disagree.  ;)

I didn't think we do agree on that.  I just removed a separate, second part of your post that goes on to talk about a different solution.  I was addressing the first part of your post.

/shrug

We will just have to disagree to disagree

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
We will just have to disagree to disagree

Agreed.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Bakari

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oakland, CA
  • Veggie Powered Handyman
    • The Flamboyant Introvert
This is why I much prefer the citizens dividend concept (or whatever it's called -- basically everyone gets enough cash for the minimum standard and we don't judge).


but we do already have that.
Its just that, if you have enough income that you don't qualify for benefits, its called a "standard deduction"

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9922
  • Registered member
This is why I much prefer the citizens dividend concept (or whatever it's called -- basically everyone gets enough cash for the minimum standard and we don't judge).


but we do already have that.
Its just that, if you have enough income that you don't qualify for benefits, its called a "standard deduction"

Interesting what is the income amount I get if I quit my job tomorrow?

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5671
anecdotes
So you agree that you have exactly one murky data point that's (at best) tangentially related to your view that education does not work, and that's enough for you to declare the best social policy, even when you're provided with meaningful statistical evidence?

oh no, not at all, I admit none of that!

Education does "work" on some people in some situations and perhaps in some measurable way. There is no absolute "education does not work" in the world, silly.

I didn't look at your link.  I cannot be educated, don't wish to receive the wisdom.  I wonder what point that proves? :)
« Last Edit: May 15, 2014, 08:16:27 PM by iris lily »

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5671
... I would feel much better about SNAP if I felt those resources were more focused and concentrated on the truly needy rather than the truly needy and the not-as-needy that are making poor financial decisions.   

Thanks for this, it's entirely reasonable. That's all us hardass conservatives ask for is a little common sense in handing out the dole.

Of course there are hundreds of thousands of families that do not have cable tv because they cannot afford it. And get SNAP benefits. Such is the way.

Bakari

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oakland, CA
  • Veggie Powered Handyman
    • The Flamboyant Introvert
This is why I much prefer the citizens dividend concept (or whatever it's called -- basically everyone gets enough cash for the minimum standard and we don't judge).


but we do already have that.
Its just that, if you have enough income that you don't qualify for benefits, its called a "standard deduction"

Interesting what is the income amount I get if I quit my job tomorrow?


I don't understand your question.  If you quit part way through the year, and assuming you don't get a new job, you already earned 5 months pay, your deduction will still provide you $6,100 for your minimum living expenses.
If you work for so little pay that the standard deduction doesn't mean anything, you get the earned income credit, which, if your tax bill is zero, the IRS writes you a check.
If you stay jobless long enough, next year you can apply for food stamps, and get that benefit instead.

Either way, everyone gets a minimum subsistence amount, either as a credit or as cash.  Even if you make 7 digits a year, you still get that same minimum standard deduction.

hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
... I would feel much better about SNAP if I felt those resources were more focused and concentrated on the truly needy rather than the truly needy and the not-as-needy that are making poor financial decisions.   

Thanks for this, it's entirely reasonable. That's all us hardass conservatives ask for is a little common sense in handing out the dole.

Of course there are hundreds of thousands of families that do not have cable tv because they cannot afford it. And get SNAP benefits. Such is the way.

Sadly, I disagree with you here. I think there are plenty of compassionate conservatives like yourself that see a need for SNAP in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, I also see a lot of conservatives whose basic attitude is "Lazy shits gladly sucking on the gubmint teat. Get a job." When Romney got caught on camera unfairly disparaging the 47% (he included retirees on SS in that sweeping statement, just for starters), that was the crowd he was addressing. And that was the moment he lost my vote (I voted Libertarian in protest of both parties).

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Location: Oklahoma
... I would feel much better about SNAP if I felt those resources were more focused and concentrated on the truly needy rather than the truly needy and the not-as-needy that are making poor financial decisions.   

Thanks for this, it's entirely reasonable. That's all us hardass conservatives ask for is a little common sense in handing out the dole.

Of course there are hundreds of thousands of families that do not have cable tv because they cannot afford it. And get SNAP benefits. Such is the way.

Sadly, I disagree with you here. I think there are plenty of compassionate conservatives like yourself that see a need for SNAP in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, I also see a lot of conservatives whose basic attitude is "Lazy shits gladly sucking on the gubmint teat. Get a job." When Romney got caught on camera unfairly disparaging the 47% (he included retirees on SS in that sweeping statement, just for starters), that was the crowd he was addressing. And that was the moment he lost my vote (I voted Libertarian in protest of both parties).

*high five*

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Sadly, I disagree with you here. I think there are plenty of compassionate conservatives like yourself that see a need for SNAP in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, I also see a lot of conservatives whose basic attitude is "Lazy shits gladly sucking on the gubmint teat. Get a job." When Romney got caught on camera unfairly disparaging the 47% (he included retirees on SS in that sweeping statement, just for starters), that was the crowd he was addressing. And that was the moment he lost my vote (I voted Libertarian in protest of both parties).

Sadly, I disagree with you here. I think there are plenty of logical liberals like yourself that see a need for judgement in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, I also see a lot of liberals whose basic attitude is "Everyone deserves the same outcome. Steal from the rich." When Obama got caught on camera saying "when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody", that was the crowd he was addressing. And that was the moment he lost my vote (I voted for Romney because he seemed the more honest).

The rewording above should be taken in the spirit captured a couple of months ago by Tyler (see quote below) and directed at the general audience, not hybrid in specific.
But as someone who has lived in both California and Texas (pretty much at complete opposite ends of the political spectrum), I can absolutely vouch for the fact that opening your mind beyond pure party politics is a healthy and rewarding exercise.  I always found it funny how many people in both states have built caricatures of the "other" side in their head that are completely off base from reality.  Just my two cents -- Make friends based on who they are, not who they vote for and especially not what you assume that means about them.  Perpetuating a personal political bubble is intellectually unhealthy. 

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5671
Sadly, I disagree with you here. I think there are plenty of compassionate conservatives like yourself that see a need for SNAP in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, I also see a lot of conservatives whose basic attitude is "Lazy shits gladly sucking on the gubmint teat. Get a job." When Romney got caught on camera unfairly disparaging the 47% (he included retirees on SS in that sweeping statement, just for starters), that was the crowd he was addressing. And that was the moment he lost my vote (I voted Libertarian in protest of both parties).

Sadly, I disagree with you here. I think there are plenty of logical liberals like yourself that see a need for judgement in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, I also see a lot of liberals whose basic attitude is "Everyone deserves the same outcome. Steal from the rich." When Obama got caught on camera saying "when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody", that was the crowd he was addressing. And that was the moment he lost my vote (I voted for Romney because he seemed the more honest).

The rewording above should be taken in the spirit captured a couple of months ago by Tyler (see quote below) and directed at the general audience, not hybrid in specific.
But as someone who has lived in both California and Texas (pretty much at complete opposite ends of the political spectrum), I can absolutely vouch for the fact that opening your mind beyond pure party politics is a healthy and rewarding exercise.  I always found it funny how many people in both states have built caricatures of the "other" side in their head that are completely off base from reality.  Just my two cents -- Make friends based on who they are, not who they vote for and especially not what you assume that means about them.  Perpetuating a personal political bubble is intellectually unhealthy. 

Awesome post! I like clever satire.

But hybrid, thanks for your comment as well. I plan to start sucking on the gubmnt teat in less than 700 days, and if Mit wants to characterize me as such, can't say that I blame him.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5671
In my state (NC), food stamps eligibility is partially based on the household's available assets, so you could argue that they have an incentive on not saving anything.

And you don't have to argue very hard to make the point. Agreed.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5671

Why should a single mom who gets food stamps for her kids, works a minimum wage job all day, and goes home tired not be allowed to watch TV?

...

Oh please, this is a false dichotomy argument, her choices are not cable or no tv at all.

That mom can have tv but not cable and still get fab entertainment. Used Dvd players (no blue ray) are practically free.  My Library has 27,000 dvds, for instance. I am watching the classic cable shows on dvd: Larry Sanders Show, The Shield, The Wire, Sopranos, etc. Now I've got a new one Orphan Black and I just finished the new French production The Returned. There is no better entertainment from the Toob.




arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA

Why should a single mom who gets food stamps for her kids, works a minimum wage job all day, and goes home tired not be allowed to watch TV?

...

Oh please, this is a false dichotomy argument, her choices are not cable or no tv at all.

That mom can have tv but not cable and still get fab entertainment. Used Dvd players (no blue ray) are practically free.  My Library has 27,000 dvds, for instance. I am watching the classic cable shows on dvd: Larry Sanders Show, The Shield, The Wire, Sopranos, etc. Now I've got a new one Orphan Black and I just finished the new French production The Returned. There is no better entertainment from the Toob.

That's dynamite.

And if she wants live cable TV for a certain show, sports, news, whatever?

Too bad, fuck you?

I vote for letting her choose how to spend her own damn money, regardless of the fact that she may be getting a basic level of food for her and her kids from those more well off than her.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5671

...And if she wants live cable TV for a certain show, sports, news, whatever?


Emphasis mine. Hope that makes my point.

Quote
Too bad, fuck you?...

well yeah, pretty much.

as an aside, you are arguing for cable as though you have it. Can that be?  I don't have cable, never  have.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 10:55:15 PM by iris lily »

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Sadly, I disagree with you here. I think there are plenty of compassionate conservatives like yourself that see a need for SNAP in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, I also see a lot of conservatives whose basic attitude is "Lazy shits gladly sucking on the gubmint teat. Get a job." When Romney got caught on camera unfairly disparaging the 47% (he included retirees on SS in that sweeping statement, just for starters), that was the crowd he was addressing. And that was the moment he lost my vote (I voted Libertarian in protest of both parties).

Sadly, I disagree with you here. I think there are plenty of logical liberals like yourself that see a need for judgement in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, I also see a lot of liberals whose basic attitude is "Everyone deserves the same outcome. Steal from the rich." When Obama got caught on camera saying "when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody", that was the crowd he was addressing. And that was the moment he lost my vote...

Sadly, I think you're both right.


...And if she wants live cable TV for a certain show, sports, news, whatever?

Too bad, fuck you?...

And if I want a Mercedes Benz 'cause my friends all drive Porsches?  (Hope I'm not dating myself too badly there.)

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
No, I don't have cable.  But that doesn't mean I'd deny someone else having it, even if I don't care for it and think there are better ways to spend one's time.  I'm not the ultimate judge of that.

I also don't wear not having cable as a badge of pride, as you appear to.

Cable is the example, but I don't care if it's paying for cable, eating out, or paying for porn.

I'm not going to judge them or want to restrict that choice.

I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

warfreak2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Location: UK
    • Music by me
Isn't "the government shouldn't choose how people spend their own money" a conservative principle? There's something odd about this debate...

CheapskateWife

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1410
  • Location: Hill Country, TX - Being a blueberry in the Tomato Soup
  • FIRE'd and Loving it!
If you're using any form of govt welfare to buy food, you should not be buying shit food. Salty sugary crap.

Is that right or wrong?

Or to reverse it, the government should not allow people on benefits to buy shitty food.

I wonder why no one has thought of that before?

Oh, wait: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

From the website "■Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items"

Head explodes....

Having worked for HUD and in Public Housing, I know that these programs are desperately needed.  However, for the benifit of the health of childbearing women, infants and children, WIC can determine specificially that these items are not eligible, then SNAP should be able to as well.  I strongly feel that taxpayers should only be subsidizing nutritiously beneficial foods, not sodas, cookies, and snacks.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5671

And if I want a Mercedes Benz 'cause my friends all drive Porsches?  (Hope I'm not dating myself too badly there.)

My dear, you know that the answer to me buying you a Benz through my tax dollars is a big FU  :)

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5671
Isn't "the government shouldn't choose how people spend their own money" a conservative principle? There's something odd about this debate...

It's a debate is about what is necessary in life vs what's in the I want category because the taxpayers are funding the lifestyle. But you know that, you are choosing to ignore a perfectly reasonable distinction.

As a conservative I am completely on board with the theory of $$$ handed to those in poverty and let them decide how to spend it. But here's the problem, the complicating factor of real life: they don't spend wisely and their children are left without a roof, food, clothing, means to keep clean and safe, when simply the cash is handed to them. Daddy blows the cash at the racetrack, Mom blows it on drugs, etc.

When the kids are left in this situation, what is your answer then? When children don't have food to eat, how do you address that?

I agree with Arebelspy that making rules and regs for adults on the dole is unnecessary. I don't care if they blow all of their money on cable and wine, it's not an issue for me. These same adults can then figure out where to go for food--church feeding stations, food bank, whatever. And maybe they won't find any place to take them and that is, again, ok with me. Whatever.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 10:17:38 AM by iris lily »

Bakari

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oakland, CA
  • Veggie Powered Handyman
    • The Flamboyant Introvert
... when simply the cash is handed to them. Daddy blows the cash at the racetrack, Mom blows it on drugs, etc.

When the kids are left in this situation, what is your answer then? When children don't have food to eat, how do you address that?


That's why food stamps are for food.
We agree that soda and cookies aren't healthy food, and aren't an ideal choice, but they do have calories that can be metabolized for energy by living beings.  You can't spend food stamps at the race track.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5671

That's why food stamps are for food.
We agree that soda and cookies aren't healthy food, and aren't an ideal choice, but they do have calories that can be metabolized for energy by living beings.  You can't spend food stamps at the race track.

Of course. That's why we taxpayers have to spend $$$ to fund bureaucrats to make and enforce the rules and regs. To save the humans from themselves.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5671

Cable is the example, but I don't care if it's paying for cable, eating out, or paying for porn.

I'm not going to judge them or want to restrict that choice.

Oh yes my friend has called me a "reverse snob" due to our cable-less household. :)


hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
No, I don't have cable.  But that doesn't mean I'd deny someone else having it, even if I don't care for it and think there are better ways to spend one's time.  I'm not the ultimate judge of that.

I also don't wear not having cable as a badge of pride, as you appear to.

Cable is the example, but I don't care if it's paying for cable, eating out, or paying for porn.

I'm not going to judge them or want to restrict that choice.

I'd like to know how you would draw up eligibility requirements for public assistance then. If you make less than X, you are entitled to Y, no questions asked?

I just can't get on board with that notion. I'm all for things like the Earned Income Tax Credit to help minimum wage earners stretch their dollar, no questions asked. At some level, however, I do feel like there needs to be some give and take if an applicant is seeking further direct public assistance, such as SNAP, welfare, etc. I think it is on the applicant to demonstrate genuine need (and not want), and I think it is the duty of the government to establish that the applicant has genuine need through a screening process.

Otherwise, my previously unemployed 18 year old kid would have been eligible for food stamps if I am understanding your logic, and I would be quite surprised to see you getting on board with that (preposterous) notion. So please elaborate.

hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.

And if I want a Mercedes Benz 'cause my friends all drive Porsches?  (Hope I'm not dating myself too badly there.)

My dear, you know that the answer to me buying you a Benz through my tax dollars is a big FU  :)

(I don't think she knows Janis Joplin, but I got it....)

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Isn't "the government shouldn't choose how people spend their own money" a conservative principle? There's something odd about this debate...

Well, that's the point, isn't it?  It's NOT their own money they're spending.

There's also the principle of agreeing that although people do have a right to do stupid & self-destructive things, it's good to use education and information to try to persuade them to make different choices.  As with smoking, for instance.

For the record, I'm not a fan of non-poor people doing stupid things with their money, either.  I expect we've all read a lot of MMM posts giving out facepunches for stupidly wasteful middle class behavior.  Why should being poor grant immunity from such facepunches?

hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
If you're using any form of govt welfare to buy food, you should not be buying shit food. Salty sugary crap.

Is that right or wrong?

Or to reverse it, the government should not allow people on benefits to buy shitty food.

I wonder why no one has thought of that before?

Oh, wait: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

From the website "■Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items"

Head explodes....

Having worked for HUD and in Public Housing, I know that these programs are desperately needed.  However, for the benifit of the health of childbearing women, infants and children, WIC can determine specificially that these items are not eligible, then SNAP should be able to as well.  I strongly feel that taxpayers should only be subsidizing nutritiously beneficial foods, not sodas, cookies, and snacks.

If you only quote that bit and not the part about what a bureaucratic nightmare distinguishing the hundreds of thousands of food items are, then I agree with you. SNAP has basically said the least worst position is to not distinguish amongst food items, the worst position is to stand up yet one more giant ball of red tape. I don't know how valid a position this is, but I get the logic behind it (milk, check, chocolate milk, uncheck, frosted flakes??? etc. etc). Head still firmly in place (if a bit too large at times).

warfreak2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Location: UK
    • Music by me
Isn't "the government shouldn't choose how people spend their own money" a conservative principle? There's something odd about this debate...

It's a debate is about what is necessary in life vs what's in the I want category because the taxpayers are funding the lifestyle. But you know that, you are choosing to ignore a perfectly reasonable distinction.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but a centrally-planned economy in which the government measures and provides for people's needs, without letting them choose how to allocate their own resources, is not acceptable on conservative grounds, even if the victims aren't taxpayers. (Although, the vast majority of working-age, able-bodied welfare recipients are taxpayers, and most of the rest either were or will become taxpayers.) The conservative objection to communism isn't just that rich people shouldn't be subjected to it. Forcing people to buy health insurance (also a need) is also not acceptable on conservative grounds, because we're supposed to trust people to decide for themselves how to spend their own money (even though those who "choose" not to buy health insurance are uniformly poor).

But sure, there's definitely no contradiction here, my observation must be intentionally, maliciously wrong.

Well, that's the point, isn't it?  It's NOT their own money they're spending.
Sure it is. They receive it from the government, fair and square, according to the same rules which apply to everyone.

Quote
There's also the principle of agreeing that although people do have a right to do stupid & self-destructive things, it's good to use education and information to try to persuade them to make different choices.  As with smoking, for instance.
Agreed, but this "education and information" doesn't really include restricting what people can spend their benefits on.

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
I was a social worker at one time & many here are assuming that most poor people make bad choices when they actually do not. Also you can not tell people how to spend the $-how would they ever learn how to manage correctly. Having classes that teach these types of things are very helpful.  You will always have lazy people trying to game the system but most people do not want to be in this situation. 

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Otherwise, my previously unemployed 18 year old kid would have been eligible for food stamps if I am understanding your logic, and I would be quite surprised to see you getting on board with that (preposterous) notion.

Prepare your gasp.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!