Food stamps are not only unethical, they're also a really stupid idea.

[Patranus]

Instead of food stamps, which allow people to survive on less than a living wage, we should arm every mentally stable individual. Then, if someone is paid less than needed to survive, he will survive by any means necessary. That would be a true free market.

It has already been proven that the concept of a "living wage" is a liberal fantasy.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Because it's at your own risk. They can't guarantee it won't rot.

So? How does that mean that the USPS doesn't have the infrastructure to deliver perishable goods? They already do. Moreover, they can deliver packages very quickly.

Do you have any actual evidence or proof of your assertion, despite the fact that the USPS already delivers perishable goods?

I have no idea how the USPS cannot have the infrastructure to deliver perishable goods when they already deliver perishable goods. But please provide evidence.

 

[Infohawk]

I have no idea how the USPS cannot have the infrastructure to deliver perishable goods when they already deliver perishable goods.

That's ok. Read up on refrigerator trucks if you have the time.

 

[RabidMongoose]

That's ok. Read up on refrigerator trucks if you have the time.

Why? So you don't have evidence that the USPS doesn't have the infrastructure to deliver perishable goods despite the fact that the USPS already delivers perishable goods?

It's not like it takes 2 weeks for the USPS to deliver a package.

How do you know more about the USPS than USPS itself?

 

[Throckmorton]

It has already been proven that the concept of a "living wage" is a liberal fantasy.

Don't you make a living wage?

 

[MotF Bane]

I was so happy to see this thread receive no replies for almost two hours.

*sigh*

 

[piasabird]

In Alaska they ship groceries out to the tribal areas with bush planes. There are no roads at all.

 

[tydas]

Can't they just eat cake? Oh, wait no they can't! The cake is a lie!

 

[Texashiker]

Same goes for Medicare, HUD, WIC, educational vouchers, and regulations.

The US has created a welfare state. Once welfare is in place, its difficult to get rid of it.

After hurricane katrina, I saw people from new orleans that were staying at an evacuee camp in Texas refuse to look for a job. One lady walked into the office at the camp, and the first words out of her mouth were "I am on public housing in new orleans, I want to sign up for public housing here".

 

[infoiltrator]

FWIW Meals On Wheels provides meals for the home bound. I work part time at a non-profit meals on wheels, meals consist of one microwaveable dinner and one cold pack of two milk 8 oz each, one juice 6 oz., bread, one slice meat, side veggy, desert. Distinctions are few, diebetic, low cholesterol, etc. Ensure is also delivered, and Holiday Meals by volunteers.
In some areas volunteers deliver meals.
Donations help keep costs to customers down. Costs, not charges or donations, exceed $10 a day for two meals.

MOW is attemping to get lawmakers to allow EBT to apply to Meals on Wheels.

Maximum monthly benefit per person is about $7.00 a day from EBT.

Anyone feel brave please attempt to live on $7.00 a day purchased from stores within walking distance or using buses. Lose use of the stove for failure to pay gas bill for a month. Lose electric power for another month.
Feel free to use soup kitchens in walking distance or on bus line. Also Food Pantrys.
Donations would be nice.

If you have not worked in five years and qualify on assets award yourself $212 a month SSI payment. Please realize this will put you in a shelter, living outside, or living with family or friends.
You may qualify as basically unpaid domestic help.

hAVE FUN.

 

[hal2kilo]

Its call soup kitchens and they were run by the church and were immensely successful - that was until the current war on religion which is try to beat down any attempt by the church to do any good.

Talk about a leap of logic with no basis in facts.

 

[Anarchist420]

It has already been proven that the concept of a "living wage" is a liberal fantasy.

I don't advocate government intervention, but a living income is actually possible. The reason why it hasn't happened is because it's being done through regulations (like minimum wage laws) rather than direct redistribution and because the income tax really isn't the best tool to redistribute wealth. OTOH, if wealthy Americans were property taxed too much, then they'd move out or they'd rebel against the government who stole from them.

Several things would have to be done to reduce the Gini coefficient of wealth:
There could be no regulations. The able bodied would get more if they worked although nonworking people with low IQ would still get something.

We'd have to have a pure non-nationalist (i.e., the U.S. wouldn't coin money although foreign coins with gold would be accepted by weight and content) gold standard.

There would be no income tax. There would have to be an IQ tax since there is a positive correlation between IQ and wealth. Money isn't the ultimate measure of wealth, rather brain and brawn are.

There could be maybe a small consumption tax but that's the only tax the people with an average or below average IQ would pay. Basically, they'd be paying that for enforcement of redistribution.

Poverty levels would have to be redefined for how much redistribution there could be. Poverty would probably have to be based on IQ. It definitely couldn't be based upon income. For example, people who work for the government generally aren't too smart. So instead of them getting paid $120k to break windows (pretty much the equivalent of what the Department of Education does) and murder people, they'd get 50 or so ounces of >.99 fine gold.

I don't advocate that, but the Democrats should do so if they want to look leftist and pro-"fairness" to more people. Alternatively, they should shut the fuck up because I dislike intellectual dishonesty (being moderate is being intellectually dishonest more often than not). I'd rather they'd do the latter.

 

[Texashiker]

FWIW Meals On Wheels provides meals for the home bound.

My mother-in-law and father-in-law got meals on wheels.

She had Pulmonary Fibrosis and was unable to walk the last 2 years of her life. She could walk a little bit, just going to the bathroom left her breathless. She would get out of her chair, walk 8 - 10 feet, have to stop and catch her breath, walk 8 - 10 feet, stop and catch her breath,,,,.

My mother-in-law and father-in-law live in Washington state. Getting out in the snow would have been pretty bad.

Meals on wheels was a great service for them. From what I understand a local church prepared the meals, then volunteers delivered the meals.

My mother-in-law passed away 2 years ago.

 

[OutHouse]

ame goes for Medicare, HUD, WIC, educational vouchers, and regulations.

They drive up the price of the things they buy because they shrink the supply

see this is one of those mods things. a thread created with baseless claims.

care to support your claim? Also why do you always start troll threads like this then never engage in the discussion?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Same goes for Medicare, HUD, WIC, educational vouchers, and regulations.--- proof please..link would help...

They drive up the price of the things they buy because they shrink the supply. It shouldn't be a coincidence that food prices have sky rocketed while a record number of Americans are on food stamps. --proof please..link would help...


Why haven't I ever heard a welfare statist say they should be repealed and replaced with money? Is it because the general welfare and the state are incompatible or what?

I think all redistribution by government is bad, but redistributing dollars (better yet, gold so that there would be much less inflation which causes all sorts of problems) would require less waste (especially if it was done with gold) and those who can't help themselves would get to choose.

There is so much waste with food stamps it's ridiculous.--proof please..link would help...


It's the same thing with how people used to have 5 year mortgages at 6% interest. Then FDR came along with the fascist FHA. Then to add insult to injury, there was the Great Society so that resulted in... the housing market we have today. The market will always find around integration imposed by the government anyway so don't tell me that the CRA was good legislation.

I realize there are disadvantages to giving people money compared to vouchers, but how do those advantages outweigh the costs?---proof please..link would help...

Do you have any factual proof to back all your diatribe up??

Seems like you are going over the deep end without knowing how to swim.

Also later you posted --

I don't advocate government intervention, but a living income is actually possible. --anything is possible.....for some people its not possible and when the economy tanks even those with as you would say a high IQ manage somehow!The reason why it hasn't happened is because it's being done through regulations (like minimum wage laws) rather than direct redistribution and because the income tax really isn't the best tool to redistribute wealth. OTOH, if wealthy Americans were property taxed too much, then they'd move out or they'd rebel against the government who stole from them.

Several things would have to be done to reduce the Gini coefficient of wealth:
There could be no regulations. The able bodied would get more if they worked although nonworking people with low IQ would still get something.
You really need to get off this IQ kick of yours....do you have proof...as in studies and links...

We'd have to have a pure non-nationalist (i.e., the U.S. wouldn't coin money although foreign coins with gold would be accepted by weight and content) gold standard. -- not that again....please back up what you are saying....

There would be no income tax. There would have to be an IQ tax since there is a positive correlation between IQ and wealth. Money isn't the ultimate measure of wealth, rather brain and brawn are.-- Now that is funny NOT original but funny -- links please...

There could be maybe a small consumption tax but that's the only tax the people with an average or below average IQ would pay. Basically, they'd be paying that for enforcement of redistribution.

Poverty levels would have to be redefined for how much redistribution there could be. Poverty would probably have to be based on IQ.--again....even though you are speculating you still need more than just your opinion to convince people...a link would help...NOT a you tube link...

It definitely couldn't be based upon income. For example, people who work for the government generally aren't too smart. --- wow just wow--can you back that statement up.....

So instead of them getting paid $120k to break windows (pretty much the equivalent of what the Department of Education does) and murder people, they'd get 50 or so ounces of >.99 fine gold.---whats is this? murder people.....

I don't advocate that, but the Democrats should do so if they want to look leftist and pro-"fairness" to more people. Alternatively, they should shut the fuck up because I dislike intellectual dishonesty (being moderate is being intellectually dishonest more often than not). I'd rather they'd do the latter.

hmmmmmm

 

[CitizenKain]

I don't advocate government intervention, but a living income is actually possible. The reason why it hasn't happened is because it's being done through regulations (like minimum wage laws) rather than direct redistribution and because the income tax really isn't the best tool to redistribute wealth. OTOH, if wealthy Americans were property taxed too much, then they'd move out or they'd rebel against the government who stole from them.

Several things would have to be done to reduce the Gini coefficient of wealth:
There could be no regulations. The able bodied would get more if they worked although nonworking people with low IQ would still get something.

We'd have to have a pure non-nationalist (i.e., the U.S. wouldn't coin money although foreign coins with gold would be accepted by weight and content) gold standard.

There would be no income tax. There would have to be an IQ tax since there is a positive correlation between IQ and wealth. Money isn't the ultimate measure of wealth, rather brain and brawn are.

There could be maybe a small consumption tax but that's the only tax the people with an average or below average IQ would pay. Basically, they'd be paying that for enforcement of redistribution.

Poverty levels would have to be redefined for how much redistribution there could be. Poverty would probably have to be based on IQ. It definitely couldn't be based upon income. For example, people who work for the government generally aren't too smart. So instead of them getting paid $120k to break windows (pretty much the equivalent of what the Department of Education does) and murder people, they'd get 50 or so ounces of >.99 fine gold.

I don't advocate that, but the Democrats should do so if they want to look leftist and pro-"fairness" to more people. Alternatively, they should shut the fuck up because I dislike intellectual dishonesty (being moderate is being intellectually dishonest more often than not). I'd rather they'd do the latter.

Take your medications.

 

[MovingTarget]

It has already been proven that the concept of a "living wage" is a liberal fantasy.

Really? Do enlighten us...

/lawnchair

 

[OutHouse]

I don't advocate government intervention, but a living income is actually possible. The reason why it hasn't happened is because it's being done through regulations (like minimum wage laws) rather than direct redistribution and because the income tax really isn't the best tool to redistribute wealth. OTOH, if wealthy Americans were property taxed too much, then they'd move out or they'd rebel against the government who stole from them.

Several things would have to be done to reduce the Gini coefficient of wealth:
There could be no regulations. The able bodied would get more if they worked although nonworking people with low IQ would still get something.

We'd have to have a pure non-nationalist (i.e., the U.S. wouldn't coin money although foreign coins with gold would be accepted by weight and content) gold standard.

There would be no income tax. There would have to be an IQ tax since there is a positive correlation between IQ and wealth. Money isn't the ultimate measure of wealth, rather brain and brawn are.

There could be maybe a small consumption tax but that's the only tax the people with an average or below average IQ would pay. Basically, they'd be paying that for enforcement of redistribution.

Poverty levels would have to be redefined for how much redistribution there could be. Poverty would probably have to be based on IQ. It definitely couldn't be based upon income. For example, people who work for the government generally aren't too smart. So instead of them getting paid $120k to break windows (pretty much the equivalent of what the Department of Education does) and murder people, they'd get 50 or so ounces of >.99 fine gold.

I don't advocate that, but the Democrats should do so if they want to look leftist and pro-"fairness" to more people. Alternatively, they should shut the fuck up because I dislike intellectual dishonesty (being moderate is being intellectually dishonest more often than not). I'd rather they'd do the latter.

OMG you sound just like Nazi doctrine. WTF is wrong with you.

 

[jstern01]

I don't advocate government intervention, but a living income is actually possible. The reason why it hasn't happened is because it's being done through regulations (like minimum wage laws) rather than direct redistribution and because the income tax really isn't the best tool to redistribute wealth. OTOH, if wealthy Americans were property taxed too much, then they'd move out or they'd rebel against the government who stole from them.

Several things would have to be done to reduce the Gini coefficient of wealth:
There could be no regulations. The able bodied would get more if they worked although nonworking people with low IQ would still get something.

We'd have to have a pure non-nationalist (i.e., the U.S. wouldn't coin money although foreign coins with gold would be accepted by weight and content) gold standard.

There would be no income tax. There would have to be an IQ tax since there is a positive correlation between IQ and wealth. Money isn't the ultimate measure of wealth, rather brain and brawn are.

There could be maybe a small consumption tax but that's the only tax the people with an average or below average IQ would pay. Basically, they'd be paying that for enforcement of redistribution.

Poverty levels would have to be redefined for how much redistribution there could be. Poverty would probably have to be based on IQ. It definitely couldn't be based upon income. For example, people who work for the government generally aren't too smart. So instead of them getting paid $120k to break windows (pretty much the equivalent of what the Department of Education does) and murder people, they'd get 50 or so ounces of >.99 fine gold.

I don't advocate that, but the Democrats should do so if they want to look leftist and pro-"fairness" to more people. Alternatively, they should shut the fuck up because I dislike intellectual dishonesty (being moderate is being intellectually dishonest more often than not). I'd rather they'd do the latter.

Here comes the eugenics arguments again. Seriously do you even think rationally? Who was it again that tried this line of thinking... Oh yeah it as Nazi Germany and the segregationists in the the South.

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/?gclid=CLvO-tfJm64CFXJntgod5gFhJA

 

[Anarchist420]

Take your medications.

Actually, it's just the opposite (amphetamines suck, but they can make me feel better).

OMG you sound just like Nazi doctrine. WTF is wrong with you.

A Nazi would say those people should be sterilized. I never said that. Rather, what I was doing was suggesting planks for liberals to use so they wouldn't appear economically ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

The Democrats who claim to be so bright and so anti-rich people should know by now that the income tax isn't a wealth tax and the minimum wage is fascist (and causes unemployment), which means they don't redistribute from the poor to the rich.

Here comes the eugenics arguments again. Seriously do you even think rationally? Who was it again that tried this line of thinking... Oh yeah it as Nazi Germany and the segregationists in the the South.

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/?gclid=CLvO-tfJm64CFXJntgod5gFhJA

I don't think rationally because I'm a dumbass and I knew that Nazis support eugenics as public policy.

Like I said above, I never advocated eugenics as public policy

 

[jstern01]

Actually, it's just the opposite (amphetamines suck, but they can make me feel better).

A Nazi would say those people should be sterilized. I never said that. Rather, what I was doing was suggesting planks for liberals to use so they wouldn't appear economically ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

The Democrats who claim to be so bright and so anti-rich people should know by now that the income tax isn't a wealth tax and the minimum wage is fascist (and causes unemployment), which means they don't redistribute from the poor to the rich.

I don't think rationally because I'm a dumbass and I knew that Nazis support eugenics as public policy.

Like I said above, I never advocated eugenics as public policy

So the part about an IQ tax is just a joke, nothing serious?

 

[LurkerPrime]

I think food stamps should be limited to a few items:
bread
rice
beans
canned soup
canned tuna or spam

You want to eat anything else besides those 5 things then you gotta use your own money. Food stamps should be for the minimum required to sustain a person. The shittier the food tastes, honestly the better. That should at least give people on food stamps an incentive to get a damn job.

I also think alcohol and tabacco sales should be prohibited for people on food stamps. It pisses me off beyond belief that I see people buy 80 dollars worth of groceries on food stamps then proceed to buy a $40 carton of cigs with thier own money.

 

[sm625]

Same goes for Medicare, HUD, WIC, educational vouchers, and regulations.

They drive up the price of the things those not on food stamps buy because they shrink the supply. It shouldn't be a coincidence that food prices have sky rocketed while a record number of Americans are on food stamps.

Fixed. Obviously if you're on food stamps you dont really care how prices rise. It is the ones not receiving the bennies that tend to care more.

However, your general point is flawed. Food stamps dont just increase food prices by shrinking supply. Supply is pretty malleable for most items. If people start buying more Frosted Flakes, stores will eventually order more Frosted Flakes, and then finally more Frosted Flakes will get produced. That might lead to price fluctuations but they tend to be short term.

Food stamps increase prices by several ways:

A) Increasing sales of higher margin foods. ie People buy steaks on food stamps when they might just buy tuna or hamburger with cash. Therefore the price of meats in general rises because steaks have an increased % share of total meats sold.

B) Delay of hedonic adjustments. Yes, families make hedonic adjustments too! If you run into money problems, you start buying food in bulk when it goes on sale. For example, you might buy mac and cheese in the kraf box for years. Then one day you realize you can just buy a bag of the cheese powder, and a big ol bag of noodles, and make it yourself for a third of the cost. But this dont happen if you're on food stamps. So really, food stamps are as much a handout to the rich as they are the poor. Dont believe me? Look at the price of Kraft stock, symbol KFT. That is a company that should be being slaughtered in the market due to consumer retrenchment and downsizing. But thanks to Uncle Sugar, KFT is doing great.

C) People generally dont pay attention to prices when shopping on food stamps. Not till they are down to their last $50 anyway. This helps prevent demand from falling to reflect the dissatisfaction with the higher prices.

 

[Anarchist420]

So the part about an IQ tax is just a joke, nothing serious?

What I'm saying is... if the Democrats want to redistribute wealth and punish the super wealthy, then they're doing it the wrong way. Neither the income tax (avoidable by the well connected) nor labor laws (cause unemployment and low productivity) could ever reduce wealth inequality as much as a wealth tax with no labor laws would. There is a high correlation between wealth/savings and IQ although I admit I could be mistaken.

For the record though, I'm no Nazi

 

[jstern01]

I have never seen any study showing IQ as a indicator of wealth as far as the super wealthy (1%'s) is concerned. I would suspect that IQ has nothing to do with people who find an niche or work very hard to achieve that level.