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

[senseamp]

From Wikipedia



They are the middle men.
Just because its a government body, does not mean there is not middle men.

IRS collects money. Department of Agriculture gets the federal aid. They then send it to the states institutions and then the money gets to the people.

All the Ryan plan does is say, instead of giving the money to the state institutions, give it to a private institution to see if it can be done cheaper.

So cut those middlemen out and send food stamps directly from federal government to the recipients. States or private sector are both unnecessary middlemen for federal programs that do nothing but add cost. Both are based on Republican pipe dreams that states and/or private sector are more efficient than the federal government.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So cut those middlemen out and send food stamps directly from federal government to the recipients. States or private sector are both unnecessary middlemen for federal programs that do nothing but add cost.

You seem to forget that many states add money to these programs. NY spends fabulously, taking from property taxes and schools to fund it. That doesn't mean we do a good job by any means.

I think we need a cashless system which severely limits what funds can be spent on. We had a couple hundred million spent on HDTVS, booze, smokes and anything but what it was earmarked for, school supplies.

 

[senseamp]

You seem to forget that many states add money to these programs. NY spends fabulously, taking from property taxes and schools to fund it. That doesn't mean we do a good job by any means.

I think we need a cashless system which severely limits what funds can be spent on. We had a couple hundred million spent on HDTVS, booze, smokes and anything but what it was earmarked for, school supplies.

OK, so the portion your state contributes, they can do what they please. You want to set up a line up of middlemen scammers to take your state's money, good for you. But federal funds should go direct.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Not that I agree with his idea. But what do you consider the layers of govt that take their share of each tax dollar spent on social services in this country?

True, one has to consider the cost of administering and doling out these tax dollars versus how much is actually making it to those who those tax dollars are being aimed at in the first place.

If you have a giant bureaucracy that eats up most of the money being thrown at a cause then you are not solving or mitigating a damn thing.

Now IMHO the alternative to a system dependent on bureaucratic oversight would be a system that works as a independent and mechanical function of tax collection that eliminates the need pay for and support government agency to manage such a policy, i.e. negative income tax system.

Which as has been mentioned before would operate in a fashion in that if you fall below a certain threshold of income or have no job, etc you are given as a function of filling a tax form a monthly stipend that is eventually phased out over time as you gain full employment and/or raise above certain income levels until it becomes zero and then you start paying taxes. Obviously this system would need some more fleshing out to insure that different situations (if you have kids for example) are addressed correctly but it could work if done correctly and eliminate how much money is siphoned away via government bureaucratic bloat.


Of course their are counter arguments to this approach but IMHO those arguments are generally based on assumptions of what people think would occur, though I'd also admit that some are also valid concerns that would no doubt need addressing.

 

[-slash-]

I agree there is some merit in it, but if that young single mother is applying for food and housing aid she probably needs food and housing aid, and it's not like there's a lot of excess in those payments for other things. Tuition in particular - even for a state college, it would be difficult to fund with the money allocated for food and housing aid even if that young single mother had other resources for food and housing.


Someday you'll have to explain to us why the supposed eternal threat of Paul Ryan reducing Medicaid and Medicare is a good reason to oppose him but President Obama should be supported while he cuts $700 billion from them. Hell, for that I'll even bring popcorn.

The idea is if she wants to go to school and needs aid the programs will help provide for food and housing, she needs to be fiscally responsible and spend the money wisely in order to make it. This frees up the majority of those expenditures so with a part time job she should in essence be able to afford community or state college coupled with all of the currently available education scholarships, grants, and her income. Yes it will be difficult and the quality of life will likely not be very high, but she has put herself in this position and through hard work and incentive from the agency to increase her funding she has ample means to relieve herself of her current woes and provide a quality life for herself.

 

[BoberFett]

There is no need for a toll collector middleman when the government is giving food stamps or housing voucher to the poor. There is no benefit, and there is no need. There is only cost. It's another Republican scam, nothing more, nothing less.

When I have suggested that the government should provide dried beans, rice, and other staples to the poor to ensure they have healthy food, I was shouted down about how inefficient that would be, and that it was best to just give money to the poor and let them buy whatever they want.

Seems you Democrats should get together and figure out your rhetoric. You don't want a middleman, unless you do.

 

[-slash-]

You seem to forget that many states add money to these programs. NY spends fabulously, taking from property taxes and schools to fund it. That doesn't mean we do a good job by any means.

I think we need a cashless system which severely limits what funds can be spent on. We had a couple hundred million spent on HDTVS, booze, smokes and anything but what it was earmarked for, school supplies.

Yes. Nothing ticks me off more than seeing someone purchasing groceries with EBT then pulling out cash for the fluff "booze, smokes, electronics, etc". If you have money to spend on the fluff, you have money to spend on the necessities.

OK, so the portion your state contributes, they can do what they please. You want to set up a line up of middlemen scammers to take your state's money, good for you. But federal funds should go direct.

It's a bidding process like said before. The agency that will take the money and appropriate it using the most efficient method will be rewarded with the ability to do so. The current system is flawed and direct distribution is throwing tax dollars away to people who abuse the system with little guidelines for removal from assistance. It is in essence an experiment to see if any one agency (private, government, non-profit, profit, etc) can take the system and better utilize the money to help people and provide incentive for quality of life advancement for the people in need and not distribute the funds to those who are abusing the system and not bettering themselves to get off the cheese.

 

[-slash-]

When I have suggested that the government should provide dried beans, rice, and other staples to the poor to ensure they have healthy food, I was shouted down about how inefficient that would be, and that it was best to just give money to the poor and let them buy whatever they want.

Seems you Democrats should get together and figure out your rhetoric. You don't want a middleman, unless you do.

Dried beans, rice, and other staples suck, they want money to spend on Doritos and Rockstars. Unfortunately those tax dollars are our tax dollars I would rather see either helping those who really need it and will use it properly, or improving schools, roadways, wildlife enforcement, etc.

 

[ivwshane]

How would the private middleman be more costlier?

Let's see, does a government run body require a profit on top of its expenses or does it require only that it's expenses be paid for? Can you say the same for a for profit company? No , no you cannot. By it's very nature businesses will do whatever it can to maximize profit, including reducing and denying making payments.

That's not my opinion, that's historical fact.

 

[senseamp]

When I have suggested that the government should provide dried beans, rice, and other staples to the poor to ensure they have healthy food, I was shouted down about how inefficient that would be, and that it was best to just give money to the poor and let them buy whatever they want.

Seems you Democrats should get together and figure out your rhetoric. You don't want a middleman, unless you do.

Yo don't know people's nutrition needs, plus rice and beans aren't even all that healthy. Plus why should the government set up a parallel rice and beans distribution system when we have supermarkets and government can just send people food stamps to buy them with. Makes no sense. You can't buy whatever you want with SNAP money anyways.

 

[-slash-]

Let's see, does a government run body require a profit on top of its expenses or does it require only that it's expenses be paid for? Can you say the same for a for profit company? No , no you cannot. By it's very nature businesses will do whatever it can to maximize profit, including reducing and denying making payments.

That's not my opinion, that's historical fact.

Most are missing the point here. The state has the choice to dole out the money to whoever they see fit. Straight from the plan,
"The Opportunity Grant wouldn’t be a blank check. Instead, the federal government would require each
participating state to develop and submit for fast-track approval a concrete plan to develop a new aid program. To
get approval, the plan would have to meet four conditions.
First, the plan must demonstrate how the funds would be used to move people out of poverty and into
independence. The state could not use the Opportunity Grant to fund other priorities, such as highways. And the
plan must, at a minimum, direct assistance first toward people below the poverty line.
Second, the new program would have to require all able-bodied recipients to work or engage in work-related
activities in exchange for aid. The elderly and the disabled would be exempt from this requirement.
Third, the state would need to use some funds from the consolidated programs to encourage new approaches by
innovative groups as well as non-governmental organizations with a proven track record. It would also need to
show how it would give low-income Americans more service providers to choose from.
And fourth, the state and the federal government would have to agree on measures of success and evaluation by a
third party to conduct an objective assessment of the plan.
If approved, states would take the funding for these programs and provide a fixed funding stream to competing
local service providers, including nonprofits, for-profits, and state agencies. In some cases, each person might apply
directly to the service providers for assistance, and providers could provide customized aid through case
management. "
If the private organization can not provide a good plan they are axed. The funding is fixed between competitors as well so one private organization cannot scrape all the money for profit. This also can cut out the current government bodies who are doing distribution. The government body does not collect a profit off of the allocated assistance money, but it pays for itself with our tax dollars. We as tax payers see a savings in our taxes, or we see more money free to be allocated for spending on other issues or an increase in spending on the funding dollars for the poor.

Here is the plan:
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/expanding_opportunity_in_america.pdf

 

[-slash-]

Yo don't know people's nutrition needs, plus rice and beans aren't even all that healthy. Plus why should the government set up a parallel rice and beans distribution system when we have supermarkets and government can just send people food stamps to buy them with. Makes no sense. You can't buy whatever you want with SNAP money anyways.

Because people will take a job and stay below the poverty line to stay on government benefits. They can then use the tax dollars we pay for their food programs to buy essentials and use their own money to buy shit they do not need. Instead the system should be used to buy only what they need in excess of their earned money. If that happens to be nothing, they do not need to be on the food program do they?

 

[DrPizza]

Yo don't know people's nutrition needs, plus rice and beans aren't even all that healthy. Plus why should the government set up a parallel rice and beans distribution system when we have supermarkets and government can just send people food stamps to buy them with. Makes no sense. You can't buy whatever you want with SNAP money anyways.

To an extent, I agree with Boberfett. It would be nice if the food stamps program was administered similar to how the WIC program is run - specific products are approved. Sure, leave a little bit - maybe 10% of the allocated money per family - for discretionary food spending. I'm not saying completely forbid them from getting potato chips, junk food, the occasional steak, etc. at the store, but the majority of the food should reflect relatively balanced good nutrition, while controlling costs for that nutrition.

 

[senseamp]

To an extent, I agree with Boberfett. It would be nice if the food stamps program was administered similar to how the WIC program is run - specific products are approved. Sure, leave a little bit - maybe 10% of the allocated money per family - for discretionary food spending. I'm not saying completely forbid them from getting potato chips, junk food, the occasional steak, etc. at the store, but the majority of the food should reflect relatively balanced good nutrition, while controlling costs for that nutrition.

I don't see a need for this at all. It's not like you are going to be eating steak all month on food stamps anyways. You'll probably be eating Ramen noodles. But it's interesting that conservatives trust the government to decide what specifically poor people should eat.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't see a need for this at all. It's not like you are going to be eating steak all month on food stamps anyways. You'll probably be eating Ramen noodles. But it's interesting that conservatives trust the government to decide what specifically poor people should eat.

Like I said have a cashless system and trust is irrelevant. We have something like this for health savings accounts.

 

[MongGrel]

So we need another layer of middlemen? Instead of government depositing foodstamps or housing assistance directly to recipient, we need to give money to some random third party to take a cut before they decide to help the poor the way they see fit, with our money? Just because giving it to private sector is magically going to make everything better and not just add a layer of cost?
Or we can just steer clear of this Republican scam, deposit the foodstamps or housing voucher directly to the person we are trying to help with this money.

Hey, those GOP Harvard graduates need buddies to create new high paying jobs for them ya know.

It's rough out there trying to find a place to create a new bullshit thing to mediate for 6 figure salaries for the new rich graduates I guess

If there aren't spots open have to create some.

 

[Victorian Gray]

To an extent, I agree with Boberfett. It would be nice if the food stamps program was administered similar to how the WIC program is run - specific products are approved. Sure, leave a little bit - maybe 10% of the allocated money per family - for discretionary food spending. I'm not saying completely forbid them from getting potato chips, junk food, the occasional steak, etc. at the store, but the majority of the food should reflect relatively balanced good nutrition, while controlling costs for that nutrition.

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

 

[BoberFett]

Yo don't know people's nutrition needs, plus rice and beans aren't even all that healthy. Plus why should the government set up a parallel rice and beans distribution system when we have supermarkets and government can just send people food stamps to buy them with. Makes no sense. You can't buy whatever you want with SNAP money anyways.

You mean those supermarket middlemen? Profiting from the taxpayers?

I thought this thread was against such a thing.

Get your talking points straight, fools.

 

[BoberFett]

I don't see a need for this at all. It's not like you are going to be eating steak all month on food stamps anyways. You'll probably be eating Ramen noodles. But it's interesting that conservatives trust the government to decide what specifically poor people should eat.

And it's interesting that Democrats believe poor people can be trusted to spend their money wisely, when they don't believe normal people can.

 

[Ronstang]

The current way is placing an inefficient bureaucracy of government employees in between taking their cut at every step.

Why do yo think liberals "pretend" to care about the poor so much....they get to be generous with other people's money and collect a paycheck at the same time and act like they should get the credit.

 

[senseamp]

And it's interesting that Democrats believe poor people can be trusted to spend their money wisely, when they don't believe normal people can.

It's interesting that Republicans don't even consider poor people normal.

 

[MongGrel]

It's interesting that Republicans don't even consider poor people normal.

Imagine that.

 

[Angry Irishman]

It's interesting that Republicans don't even consider poor people normal.

Repubs don't find them normal and spades see them as opportunity....it's just crazy how that works.

 

[realibrad]

Let's see, does a government run body require a profit on top of its expenses or does it require only that it's expenses be paid for? Can you say the same for a for profit company? No , no you cannot. By it's very nature businesses will do whatever it can to maximize profit, including reducing and denying making payments.

That's not my opinion, that's historical fact.

So, when a private company does something, it must make sure that what it takes in is more than what it spends. That is a good thing, because it means that its using resources efficiently. The government does not have this, and it shows. A government program can spend money and never have to answer if its worth the cost. So, in that way, a private company has the advantage.

Your argument that a public institution does not "need" to make a profit, so in theory it should be able to send the savings through its price aka taxes for public. The problem with this idea is that it almost never holds true. Because private institutions have to make a profit, corruption internally is reduced (not eliminated) because its costly. Corruption in public can go on until they get caught, which may never happen.

Also, a public institution is forever, where as a private institution can be swapped out for another if its not working. If a company is found to be abusing the people its trying to help, it would be fired and a new company would come in. You cannot do that with a public firm, as seen by examples.

 

[realibrad]

So cut those middlemen out and send food stamps directly from federal government to the recipients. States or private sector are both unnecessary middlemen for federal programs that do nothing but add cost. Both are based on Republican pipe dreams that states and/or private sector are more efficient than the federal government.

I agree with the idea of giving benefits directly to the group its supposed to help. I also understand that it will never happen, because the institutions want to take their cut. The excuse that poor people will waste the help is really insulting and a crappy excuse. However, you are moving the goal post because of politics. Your original problem was the republicans putting in a middle man. The middle man is still there either way. Both parties want a middle man because of the political benefits so both parties suck in that way.

Move on past party lines if you actually want to get help for the poor. It seems like most people care more about politics than helping the poor.