• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Food Stamp / Welfware Reform

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,936
1
0
You're right but there is also the part about those who do advocate revoking such subsidies being labeled as "Evil racists who want to see poor babies and their mothers starving on the streets" or "Anti-Americans who want to see farmers out on the street, homeless and starving", etc .
Hyperbole in Politics?

Say it ain't so!
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Hyperbole in Politics?

Say it ain't so!
I wish it wasn't so because then we'd be able to make clear, reasonable and logical decisions with having those decisions be side tracked or flat out dismissed as the emotional rhetoric ramps up from both sides.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
I support eliminating cash well fare system and replace it with a new tax system that includes 500 a month rebate payment for every man, woman and child. This will be paid for with new taxes on the rich. For a family of 4 it would be 24,000 a year free.
1.There aren't enough "rich" people
2. Isn't what you said the same as what you want to eliminate?
3. You are trolling right?

There should be a limit on various welfare programs... Some are capped at 5 years but these caps are not enforced, are appealed, etc and that is why you can have people on several forms of public assistance for their entire life.

Hard cap it at 5 years or less... and don't allow them to re-enter the program for another 5 years... And there will certainly be exceptions to that rule... the physically disabled, etc...

Limit the benefits for the number of children - some programs/states already do this. My state will pay for tubal ligation or free birth control once a welfare queen has over two or three kids... Many don't partake... I would motivate them with a one time free tubal tie or vasectomy and $1000. Cash up front... huge savings later.

Finally, we need to address illegal immigration as their children born here are immediately qualified for medicaid, food stamps, and other public assistance - which gets paid directly to the legal guardians... even if those legal guardians are here illegally... See how that works?

Add programs for returning these people to work, partial work, community labor(WorkFare) and you will ultimately reduce the number of citizens receiving welfare.
 

SilthDraeth

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2003
2,635
0
71
Right, that's what I meant about penalizing them. The reality is it's easier for government to let them spend it how they please. It's not worth the punishment factor.


How would that work at checkout counters? That would require imposing some sort of database system on supermarkets and then forcing the supermarkets to enforce it. Again, not a very business-friendly thing to do.

It really isn't that big of a deal to let people drink soda. It's not the healthiest but it does provide nutrition.
Right now, hot and ready foods are not purchasable from a deli, say you want a hot chicken, can't get it on food benefits. But next day that hot chicken that didn't sell gets put in cold section, same chicken, just cold now, and it can be bought. So their already exists foods that are blacklisted and can't be bought with benefits.
 

Ben90

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2009
2,866
2
0
Right now, hot and ready foods are not purchasable from a deli, say you want a hot chicken, can't get it on food benefits. But next day that hot chicken that didn't sell gets put in cold section, same chicken, just cold now, and it can be bought. So their already exists foods that are blacklisted and can't be bought with benefits.
And it also makes completely no sense what is and isn't. For example some 16oz energy drinks are allowed but the same brand in 8.4oz isn't.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Administrator
Mar 5, 2001
49,619
161
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Stop subsidizing food producers/farmers via food stamps and other government subsidies. If you remove these subsidies they'll be forced to address consumer demand in the market and compete with each other on prices. Which would result in farmers seeing incentives to grow alternative corps that are higher in demand besides corn of which 90% ends up as animal feed.

In fact corn subsidies are a great example of how over production/waste due to government subsidies can lead to all sort of issues from farmers producing so much corn that government has to purchase it from them and sell it off at a loss to foreign nations, to the by products (HFCS) that are created and put into almost all on the self packaged food items in order to justify farmers growing so much corn in such over abundance in this nation.
To a small extent, you're in the right ballpark. But mostly, you're wrong. Let's say the demand was 12 billion units of whatever product it is that farmers produce. You realize that their production doesn't happen overnight, right? It takes many months between planting & product ready to go to market. For national security, it makes little sense to aim for close to or barely over that 12 billion units. All it takes is a drought, a large flood, etc., and you could lose a significant portion of that crop. Then what? Are you willing to put up with occasional food shortages?

Also, farmers are good at what they do. Damn good. Milk production is so good that the farmers, competing against each other, would be able to run each other out of business by over-production & forcing the price too low. You really can't consolidate all milk production into too centralized of farms; it works better to have a lot of farms more spread out.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
The current system IS a compromise between the Democrats and Republicans.

The problem with some conservatives and food stamps is that they seem to throw out all their other beliefs in order to punish people on food stamps. Conservatives should agree that it doesn't make sense to have complicated government programs. There is no simple way to force people not to buy soda. (In a past discussion, a conservative said they wanted government grocery stores.) Conservatives should want individuals to have freedom to make choices. I don't have a problem with a poor person buying calorie-rich fast food if they have to commute a long way to a job.
I'm fine with Food Stamps but needs a big change-

What I would like to see is the same system that we have for WIC.

WIC directs its users to purchase specific products like milk, cheese, bread, tortillas, fruit, juice and the like.

Why not have a system to where their food is selected for them:
10lbs ground beef, 5-whole chickens, 3lbs broccoli, 2lbs green beans, 12 cans of vegetables, 5lbs frozen vegetable,s 10lbs white rice, 20lbs potatoes. 6-cans tuna, 4-loaves of bread and on and on and on....................

No more prepared prepackaged HFCS garbage!
I kinda agree with both of these posts. You would like to see better food choices for people who use food stamps. But like hawk said they should also have the freedom to choose for themselves.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
I personally think some kind of negative tax and repeal of monetary socialism is less harmful than food stamps, medicaid, vouchers and whatnot, but all forced redistribution of wealth is still harmful.

I've always thought vouchers are a stupid idea because of all the administrative cost behind them, both by grocers, doctors, whatever, that accept them and on the government side.

One thing, though, is that welfare should absolutely be means tested. For example, people who can't produce but have relatives who produce a lot should not be put on welfare. The relatives who take them in should especially be tax exempt, of course.

I think it would be better to abolish the minimum wage and then slightly increase the EITC. Then the people who work for low wages could pool their money together and get a place somewhere. That would be a lot less painful if we got rid of monetary socialism and went to a true gold standard.

The cost of minimum wage enforcement may not be a whole lot to the tax payer, but it is something. Labor will be cheaper and at least some of that cost reduction will be passed to the consumer.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I personally think some kind of negative tax and repeal of monetary socialism is less harmful than food stamps, medicaid, vouchers and whatnot, but all forced redistribution of wealth is still harmful.
Negative income tax/EITC is worse because it is dishonest. At least with food stamps, medicaid etc it is obvious that someone is a ward of the state.
 

Dr. Detroit

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2004
7,532
203
106
I kinda agree with both of these posts. You would like to see better food choices for people who use food stamps. But like hawk said they should also have the freedom to choose for themselves.
No they should not have the right to choose for themselves - you are on welfare, if you don't like your food choices then get off welfare. Govt mandates all sorts of crap I don't like, why not mandate for the folks on Welfare.

I'm sorry but eating Cheetos while drinking Mtn Dew and pints of Ben & Jerry's ice cream is not cool while on Food Stamps. With Obesity rates high - a system of fresh nutritious food will help with future health care costs of the people on Welfare as well.
 

Alyx

Golden Member
Apr 28, 2007
1,182
0
0
To a small extent, you're in the right ballpark. But mostly, you're wrong. Let's say the demand was 12 billion units of whatever product it is that farmers produce. You realize that their production doesn't happen overnight, right? It takes many months between planting & product ready to go to market. For national security, it makes little sense to aim for close to or barely over that 12 billion units. All it takes is a drought, a large flood, etc., and you could lose a significant portion of that crop. Then what? Are you willing to put up with occasional food shortages?

Also, farmers are good at what they do. Damn good. Milk production is so good that the farmers, competing against each other, would be able to run each other out of business by over-production & forcing the price too low. You really can't consolidate all milk production into too centralized of farms; it works better to have a lot of farms more spread out.
Although I agree that competing against each other would run some out of business, after they left the prices would recover to a sustainable price. The reason there are to many farmers isn't because of how good they are, but because false subsidies raise the value of many crops when the market really doesn't need them.

I do think some farm subsidies are a good idea, we should protect our food supply from becoming overly outsources for national safety reasons. But many subsidies, such as corn, are so high that they are more pork barrel politics rather than a important safeguard for our country.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Get rid of welfare and food stamps completely. If you need assistance, you don't get money.

If you can't afford housing, you don't get section 8 reimbursement that allows you to live amongst the rest of society. You get a minimalist (but properly maintained) government apartment. No point in lining the pockets of slumlords or paying some family's rent while they drive a BMW.

If you can't afford food, you don't get food stamps to to supplement your grocery budget so you can buy lobster while the poor shlub working 40 hours a week is eating hamburger helper. You get in line at a government cafeteria and get the meal of the day like the rest of the poor people.

If you want more out of life, go get it. Don't expect society to provide anything beyond subsistence.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Get rid of welfare and food stamps completely. If you need assistance, you don't get money.

If you can't afford housing, you don't get section 8 reimbursement that allows you to live amongst the rest of society. You get a minimalist (but properly maintained) government apartment. No point in lining the pockets of slumlords or paying some family's rent while they drive a BMW.

If you can't afford food, you don't get food stamps to to supplement your grocery budget so you can buy lobster while the poor shlub working 40 hours a week is eating hamburger helper. You get in line at a government cafeteria and get the meal of the day like the rest of the poor people.

If you want more out of life, go get it. Don't expect society to provide anything beyond subsistence.
The government cafeteria would work well with the state run apartments.

Or we could just give them a bag of rice.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,733
3,560
126
Get rid of welfare and food stamps completely. If you need assistance, you don't get money.

If you can't afford housing, you don't get section 8 reimbursement that allows you to live amongst the rest of society. You get a minimalist (but properly maintained) government apartment. No point in lining the pockets of slumlords or paying some family's rent while they drive a BMW.

If you can't afford food, you don't get food stamps to to supplement your grocery budget so you can buy lobster while the poor shlub working 40 hours a week is eating hamburger helper. You get in line at a government cafeteria and get the meal of the day like the rest of the poor people.

If you want more out of life, go get it. Don't expect society to provide anything beyond subsistence.
Bad idea. You don't want to ever give anything to the can't do for themselves for free. You find something, anything they can do and pay them to do it. You chart their productivity, such as it is and increase their welfare as their productivity increases, if it does. You can pay them for anything, picking up trash, putting asphalt in a pot hole, watching for crime at night, anything, even learning to read or learning a trade, but not for free unless the disability is total.

People don't know it, but they hate themselves if they don't contribute, if they live like they feel. Best to deny people real reasons to hate themselves.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
Everything in life is a compromise. My Korean Mother-in-Law, now a US Citizen lives in New York City and has a garden plot where she raises vegetables. Seeds may not be considered valid under food stamps either.

I never was a fan of absolutes. They should pay them once a week, so their money is split up. That way it is harder to starve to death.

At times I think that there should be no food stamps at all. Our church has a welfare program and we usually just deliver the food. We also sometimes pay rent or emergency bills. There is a place for compassion.
 
Last edited:

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,021
9
81
1.There aren't enough "rich" people
2. Isn't what you said the same as what you want to eliminate?
3. You are trolling right?

There should be a limit on various welfare programs... Some are capped at 5 years but these caps are not enforced, are appealed, etc and that is why you can have people on several forms of public assistance for their entire life.

Hard cap it at 5 years or less... and don't allow them to re-enter the program for another 5 years... And there will certainly be exceptions to that rule... the physically disabled, etc...

Limit the benefits for the number of children - some programs/states already do this. My state will pay for tubal ligation or free birth control once a welfare queen has over two or three kids... Many don't partake... I would motivate them with a one time free tubal tie or vasectomy and $1000. Cash up front... huge savings later.

Finally, we need to address illegal immigration as their children born here are immediately qualified for medicaid, food stamps, and other public assistance - which gets paid directly to the legal guardians... even if those legal guardians are here illegally... See how that works?

Add programs for returning these people to work, partial work, community labor(WorkFare) and you will ultimately reduce the number of citizens receiving welfare.

Not really, I am serious.

I have been thinking about this for a while, but I realized that 500 per person should maybe be 750 a month per adult and 250 a month for each child under 18. The current food stamp program should also be abolished in favor of a 40 to 200 dollars a month (food stamp) money that can only be used to purchase groceries. The cost would be around 3 trillion a year, but would help end homelessness and poverty. It an be paid through higher taxes, and mandatory employment laws. Basically everyone who is able to work will work either through their own free will or through forced labor.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
What I would like to see is the same system that we have for WIC.

WIC directs its users to purchase specific products like milk, cheese, bread, tortillas, fruit, juice and the like.
WIC has the idea of limiting what people are allowed to purchase right.

However, WIC itself is exactly what is wrong with the system. If you cannot afford to have a child you shouldnt be having one. WIC is a program designed to specifcally help those people.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,733
3,560
126
WIC has the idea of limiting what people are allowed to purchase right.

However, WIC itself is exactly what is wrong with the system. If you cannot afford to have a child you shouldnt be having one. WIC is a program designed to specifcally help those people.
Time for methinhalem to take his daily dump on women.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,566
295
126
Dont allow people who are unable to support a child to have a child.

A 4 year cap should be enough to allow for unforeseen bad things that might happen.
And exactly how do you plan on not allowing a person to have a child?

Or food stamps come into the picture when the child is one?

Cant wait to hear how were going work this one out.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY