U.S. Republican Paul Ryan wants choice in delivering aid to poor

[realibrad]

Illegal = "contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law."

Why do we let one group slide and another goes to prison? If something is illegal, that is that. How is it that hard to understand?

As for how they are "good", I'm quite aware. Living in one of the largest apple producing regions in the world I'm quite aware of illegal immigrants and what comes along with them. I do not live in a studio apartment in the city passing judgement on the world like the majority who are demanding we open our borders in some large fallacy of a humanitarian effort.

I thought you were equating illegal with morally wrong.

So, I think the reason we treat 1 broken law differently is because not all "crimes" are equal. Jaywalking and murder are both crimes, but one is likely to get you scorned and the other could get you put in prison or killed. So illegal immigration is against the law, its not all that terrible of a crime. There is also the issue that some laws get overturned when society no longer see the act as a problem aka inter race marriages.

 

[piasabird]

An awful lot of food stamps get sold for cash for half their face value.

 

[crashtech]

More commonly, friends and family trade things like day care for food bought with SNAP cards.

 

[realibrad]

More commonly, friends and family trade things like day care for food bought with SNAP cards.

Would be so much more efficient if we just gave them cash.

 

[-slash-]

I thought you were equating illegal with morally wrong.

So, I think the reason we treat 1 broken law differently is because not all "crimes" are equal. Jaywalking and murder are both crimes, but one is likely to get you scorned and the other could get you put in prison or killed. So illegal immigration is against the law, its not all that terrible of a crime. There is also the issue that some laws get overturned when society no longer see the act as a problem aka inter race marriages.

There is still repercussion for jay walking be it a fine or only a warning. By your logic if more and more people continue to jaywalk the government should just turn a blind eye and let it slide? Who decides what crime illegal immigration is equal to? You cannot uphold one law as illegal and enact punishment while ignoring another. How is it not that terrible of a crime? So they steal some identities so they can work and abuse government assistance programs, no big deal. So they drive with no license or insurance, again not a big deal right?

Yes there is the issue where laws get overturned, but until that time it is still illegal. The rampant insecurity of our borders to allow illegal immigrants to come across is only providing an avenue for other illegal activity such as illegal gun import/export, drugs, national security issues, etc. Also you forcing immigrants from other nations to go by the proper procedure to come into this country while letting others slide. So long as the law is on the books it needs to be upheld, you cannot just pick and choose which laws you want to enforce and upon whom.

 

[-slash-]

Would be so much more efficient if we just gave them cash.

Would be so much more efficient if they were cut off of benefits when they fail to better themselves.

 

[fskimospy]

Would be so much more efficient if we just gave them cash.

Agreed.

 

[werepossum]

God you are such a hack! You work for the energy company (no wonder you are such scum). Then you'd realize that energy prices have been steadily rising and if it weren't for Obama and the dems we wouldn't have any options like solar to compete against these companies.

If you weren't such a fucking idiot partisan hack you would also know that health care costs had been rising exponentially, where was the vote from shareholders and customers to lower prices? Non existent! Why? Because profit comes before all else!

If you weren't such a fucking partisan hack idiot you would have been able to read what I actually wrote and then you would know that I do not in fact work for any energy company. Nor have I ever. And just so you know (even knowing you will be unable to comprehend), solar energy considerably predates Obama.

Lol. Politifact had the temerity to disagree with you so of course now Politifact is part of the conspiracy. The bubble must be preserved.

Every issue, every time.

Hey, could be worse. I could be disagreeing with the entire US Senate, including my own party, and still insisting that I am correct.

Thats a great example.

http://www.bop.gov/resources/research_projects/published_reports/pub_vs_priv/cnanelson.pdf

So, on the cost side, there looks to be a slight savings. This is an industry that I would argue should be public, however, because its a burden the collective should pay. The incentives are that judges can give out harsh punishments that make the private firms wealthy, and thats a huge corruption possibility.

Agreed. Plus, giving a private corporation the right to incarcerate people, even on behalf of the state, just seems wrong even if it happens to be cheaper.

 

[fskimospy]

Hey, could be worse. I could be disagreeing with the entire US Senate, including my own party, and still insisting that I am correct.

Hey, I was just mentioning how much I was enjoying seeing you add yet another organization to the vast and growing list of conspirators. The only issue now is that the list has become so long that it's becoming hard to remember them all.

 

[realibrad]

Would be so much more efficient if they were cut off of benefits when they fail to better themselves.

I think it might be too cruel. Life is full of chance, and I don't know that people should suffer when the cost is so low. Its a very subjective line I have drawn, and its personal taste. I have no problem with society banding together to help the very poor. The problem in my opinion is that we are sheltering people from their bad decisions, rather than helping the unlucky.

 

[realibrad]

There is still repercussion for jay walking be it a fine or only a warning. By your logic if more and more people continue to jaywalk the government should just turn a blind eye and let it slide? Who decides what crime illegal immigration is equal to? You cannot uphold one law as illegal and enact punishment while ignoring another. How is it not that terrible of a crime? So they steal some identities so they can work and abuse government assistance programs, no big deal. So they drive with no license or insurance, again not a big deal right?

You are making a lot of assumptions that lead you to more assumptions. I am absolutely saying that if society decides the rules should be broken, it shouldnt be a rule. If the rule is valid then its repeal will cause a reaction to get it reinstated. if the rule is no longer valid, it gets removed.

As for who decides the punishment, well thats up to a jury and or judge. Its the very basis of the legal system. You could even have the local voters establish a mandatory minimum.

As for all the other things you listed, not all immigrants do those things. I would say that a system where that runs rampant should probably be revamped to see if it can be done in a better way.


I didnt not realize that I had said that some illegal immigrants are good and some are bad. I am for open borders for all peoples, not just one type. Our current way of doing things is very expensive and does not seem to be working better. It sure sounds like you want to spend even more on a broken system, which looks to be a pretty bad idea.

 

[DrPizza]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supple...stance_Program#Eligible_Food_Items_under_SNAP

"As per USDA rules, households CAN use SNAP benefits to purchase:

• Foods for consumption are as follows;
  • fruits and vegetables;
  • breads and cereals;
  • dairy products;
  • meats, fish and;
  • poultry
• Plants and seeds which are fit for household consumption.

Additionally, restaurants operating in certain areas may be permitted to accept SNAP benefits from eligible candidates like elderly, homeless or disabled people in return of affordable meals.
However, the USDA clearly mentions that households CANNOT use SNAP benefits to purchase the following to eat or drink:

• Wine, beer, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
• Certain nonfood items like:
  • soaps, paper products
  • household supplies, and
  • pet foods
• Hot foods
• Food items that are consumable in the store
• Vitamins and medicines[22]"

or, direct from the govt.:


http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

What I was proposing was simply taking it a step further, similar to WIC. Cereal - you're getting the stuff in the bag, or the simpler/cheaper stuff like regular corn flakes. You're not getting the $6.79 per box strawberry granola flake stuff. Meats - NY strips, porterhouses, filet mignon, ribeye, prime rib are not eligible. Ditto lobster under the seafood category. A lot of people can't responsibly budget their food money, and it's especially harmful to the children we're trying to help. There are kids going hungry three weeks of the month, because the parents splurge that first week of them month when they get their benefits.

 

[nehalem256]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supple...stance_Program#Eligible_Food_Items_under_SNAP

"As per USDA rules, households CAN use SNAP benefits to purchase:

• Foods for consumption are as follows;
  • fruits and vegetables;
  • breads and cereals;
  • dairy products;
  • meats, fish and;
  • poultry
• Plants and seeds which are fit for household consumption.

Additionally, restaurants operating in certain areas may be permitted to accept SNAP benefits from eligible candidates like elderly, homeless or disabled people in return of affordable meals.
However, the USDA clearly mentions that households CANNOT use SNAP benefits to purchase the following to eat or drink:

• Wine, beer, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
• Certain nonfood items like:
  • soaps, paper products
  • household supplies, and
  • pet foods
• Hot foods
• Food items that are consumable in the store
• Vitamins and medicines[22]"

or, direct from the govt.:


http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

They can also be used to purchase gift baskets :biggrin:

Gift baskets that contain both food and non-food items, are not eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits if the value of the non-food items exceeds 50 percent of the purchase price. To read our most recent notice about Gift Baskets, click here.

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

 

[realibrad]

What I was proposing was simply taking it a step further, similar to WIC. Cereal - you're getting the stuff in the bag, or the simpler/cheaper stuff like regular corn flakes. You're not getting the $6.79 per box strawberry granola flake stuff. Meats - NY strips, porterhouses, filet mignon, ribeye, prime rib are not eligible. Ditto lobster under the seafood category. A lot of people can't responsibly budget their food money, and it's especially harmful to the children we're trying to help. There are kids going hungry three weeks of the month, because the parents splurge that first week of them month when they get their benefits.

The crazy thing is, that children are not going hungry because the parents are wasting money on lobster.

Show me a study where children were going hungry, because parents were buying the wrong foods.

 

[-slash-]

I think it might be too cruel. Life is full of chance, and I don't know that people should suffer when the cost is so low. Its a very subjective line I have drawn, and its personal taste. I have no problem with society banding together to help the very poor. The problem in my opinion is that we are sheltering people from their bad decisions, rather than helping the unlucky.

100% agree. This is the part of this plan I strongly like. It is giving incentive to people so that they want to better their lives and get off assistance. It also has provisions to reduce or cut assistance for those who continue to make poor life choices and not better their situation. I have no issue with assisting people that need it, it's the abuse of the system by the people who use it as a crutch so they do not have to work or adjust their lifestyle to their income.

 

[-slash-]

You are making a lot of assumptions that lead you to more assumptions. I am absolutely saying that if society decides the rules should be broken, it shouldnt be a rule. If the rule is valid then its repeal will cause a reaction to get it reinstated. if the rule is no longer valid, it gets removed.

As for who decides the punishment, well thats up to a jury and or judge. Its the very basis of the legal system. You could even have the local voters establish a mandatory minimum.

As for all the other things you listed, not all immigrants do those things. I would say that a system where that runs rampant should probably be revamped to see if it can be done in a better way.


I didnt not realize that I had said that some illegal immigrants are good and some are bad. I am for open borders for all peoples, not just one type. Our current way of doing things is very expensive and does not seem to be working better. It sure sounds like you want to spend even more on a broken system, which looks to be a pretty bad idea.

Calling me on my assumptions and then making your own, brilliant!

What society has decided the illegal immigration rules should be broken? Last I checked a large portion of the population opposes open borders including me. Am I not society? You speak of the "very basis of the legal system", yet as it stands the legal system is being circumvented for political agendas. If you want the law removed it needs to go to the courts to be repealed, not circumvented until the basis of upholding laws is watered down. You cannot pick and choose, it needs to go through the proper channels and until that time the law needs to be upheld, which it is not. This is the very basis of the legal system.

The system where those issues run rampant is, wait for it, the ENTIRE UNITED STATES. There is no one system that is failing causing these issues except the one letting them into the country illegally. By your very words you are against what you just argued for, no? The DMV is there to issue licenses for driving and state laws are in place requiring insurance. Driving without a license and without insurance is illegal here in Washington, yet it happens quite often and majorly by those who have illegally entered this country from our southern border. You let them break one law, why not a few more?

Our current way of doing things is broken because of all of this humanitarian backlash. Sealing the border and forcing the immigrants to use the proper crossings and obtain paperwork is a surefire way to lessen illegal immigration and all the associated issues. Problem is the current party is fully opposed to that, instead creating a porous border where immigrants can illegally cross quite often and much easier than they would be able to had our borders been secured. We have an idea and system in place to curb the problem, it's been shot in the foot by the current party and you want to say it is broken? Of course it is.

You cannot call a plan broken when it was crippled before even being implemented.

 

[realibrad]

What society has decided the illegal immigration rules should be broken? Last I checked a large portion of the population opposes open borders including me. Am I not society? You speak of the "very basis of the legal system", yet as it stands the legal system is being circumvented for political agendas. If you want the law removed it needs to go to the courts to be repealed, not circumvented until the basis of upholding laws is watered down. You cannot pick and choose, it needs to go through the proper channels and until that time the law needs to be upheld, which it is not. This is the very basis of the legal system.

You might be apart of a subjectively large group, but you are not in the popular view. The majority of people do nothing, because enforcement of the border laws do not mean much to them and is not worth the time and effort to do anything.

Removing a law from the books can be more costly than just ignoring the law. I think this is a bad idea overall, but its how many choose to deal with laws that are arbitrary.

The system where those issues run rampant is, wait for it, the ENTIRE UNITED STATES. There is no one system that is failing causing these issues except the one letting them into the country illegally. By your very words you are against what you just argued for, no? The DMV is there to issue licenses for driving and state laws are in place requiring insurance. Driving without a license and without insurance is illegal here in Washington, yet it happens quite often and majorly by those who have illegally entered this country from our southern border. You let them break one law, why not a few more?

So, we have done very little to stop the inflow of immigrants into the US. The idea that we need to stop the inflow is what the current border laws are predicated on. The system of trying to keep out everyone that does not follow a system that takes years is the problem.

The idea that if a person breaks one law so they might as well break another is wrong. I would wager you speed on highways, yet you dont rape children. You break 1 law, but not all others?

Our current way of doing things is broken because of all of this humanitarian backlash. Sealing the border and forcing the immigrants to use the proper crossings and obtain paperwork is a surefire way to lessen illegal immigration and all the associated issues. Problem is the current party is fully opposed to that, instead creating a porous border where immigrants can illegally cross quite often and much easier than they would be able to had our borders been secured. We have an idea and system in place to curb the problem, it's been shot in the foot by the current party and you want to say it is broken? Of course it is.

You cannot call a plan broken when it was crippled before even being implemented.

So, show me the estimated cost of 100% sealing our borders to illegal immigration, and then show me the economic benefit. I really doubt the cost of closing the borders is even close to the expense to the economy. No doubt politics is involved, as it seems to be everywhere. The issue is does the return justify the cost.