• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

People on food stamps

Frisco said:
There is a naive cruelty in that question that is almost unbelievable.

To put it simply, there are perfectly honorable, hard working folk who spend their lives building the things we live and work in, growing the food we eat, fixing the things we break, etc, who could never afford insurance or much of a savings account. They spend decades living from paycheck to paycheck, and then they reach a point when they can no longer work.

I can't believe such a thing has to be said in all this.
Click to expand...

You're taking it too personal, I was just over simplifying it to keep the discussion in track.

Let me ask you this...before government hangouts, how did people solve their retirement?
 
Crude said:
Let me ask you this...before government hangouts, how did people solve their retirement?
Click to expand...

Those retirement "handouts" came about largely because of a plurality of older citizens who could not "solve their retiement," of course.
 
lordofthereef said:
That said, if the government is handing out money ...
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the qualifications necessary to receive aid? Calling it a "handout" makes it seem like graft. True poverty is required. Look at the financial definition of poverty, then at the paltry amount of aid people are eligible for ONLY if they work.

A civilized society takes care of ALL of its members.

Frisco said:
tweaking the system on many fronts would be the ideal: 1. nutrition counseling, 2. drug and alcohol counseling and therapy, 3. birth control and prenatal counseling, 4. budget counseling, etc.
Click to expand...

Excellent. Too bad "compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron. They'd prefer to eliminate all aid to the poor, jail time over counseling and to make freedom of choice illegal.
 
Frisco said:
Those retirement "handouts" came about largely because of a plurality of older citizens who could not "solve their retiement," of course.
Click to expand...

Well, actually retirement wasn't an option for everyone. We think we are entitled to retire now. Add to that the wish to live forever and you have rising medical costs. Two of our biggest expenses as a nation.
 
Crude said:
Well, actually retirement wasn't an option for everyone. We think it's our right to retire now. Add to that the wish to live forever and you have rising medical costs. Two of our biggest expenses as a nation.
Click to expand...

Most of us dont think its our right to retire but we know that we wont be able to work forever.

Your point of rising medical costs highlight the need for UHC.
 
Crude said:
Well, actually retirement wasn't an option for everyone. We think it's our right to retire now. Add to that the wish to live forever and you have rising medical costs. Two of our biggest expenses as a nation.
Click to expand...

Euthanasia for the elderly poor..?
 
Crude said:
Well, actually retirement wasn't an option for everyone. We think it's our right to retire now. Add to that the wish to live forever and you have rising medical costs. Two of our biggest expenses as a nation.
Click to expand...

Those are good points, Crude. It's just that they speak to the point I'm making, not to the one that I think you're making (stop retirement benefits, welfare, food stamps, etc?): we have a system that is flawed but needed.
 
330D said:
I am not googling for numbers. How do you know 1 million would be the number? and why every month? If they test positive, a year later they can reapply and start over. Lets not give them an easy out, make them be held accountable. I know a man who works for an agency that doles out welfare. He claims that if drug testing was mandatory the savings would pay for the initial outlay of funds in 2 years. That is significant. It is just word of mouth, but I believe him. He is a straight shooter. He likes his job and does the best he can for those in need.

I just don't understand why they should not be held accountable...

I have an idea. Make the recipients pay for their own tests. If they test positive, reimburse. If negative, sorry you're on your own. Come back in a year and reapply. (I know they don't have the money to pay for the tests if they are applying, but what else do we do?) Accountability needs to happen.
I am sure that there are companies that could make money doing drug tests while being efficient and cost effective for all parties involved.

Drug screens (urine) cost between $10 and $30. Hair is slightly more. That is not expensive.

This fat trimming needs to happen everywhere, not just with welfare, but it is a start.
Click to expand...
I am sorry, but drug tests cost more than $30. I'll go a little further. Why stop at food stamps and welfare? YOU use public funded roads everyday. MAYBE, everyone should have to submit to drug testsbefore they are allowed to use the roads. I am not just talking about driver's licenses either. Wanna take a cab? Well, that cab is going on public roads. You need to be clean before you get in that cab. That way, all the addicts won't be using the roads, freeing up congestion, making the roads last longer, and saving money.
 
noah way said:
Excellent. Too bad "compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron. They'd prefer to eliminate all aid to the poor, jail time over counseling and to make freedom of choice illegal.
Click to expand...

You really think Conservatives are not compassionate? I suppose you think compassion means paying the bills of the lazy, cradle to grave, generation after generation, huh?

Please leave us alone because clearly you lack some measure of understanding. Most of us want people to work; we do not want to fund their lazy lifestyle.

And do not post links to those we call RINOs in an effort to convince us people like Rush and Glenn are not compassionate. RINOs ain't us.
 
I don't think that there are no compassionate conservatives. However, I do think that the ones that are compassionate are labeled RINO's by the likes of Glenn and Rush.
 
nlsme said:
I don't think that there are no compassionate conservatives. However, I do think that the ones that are compassionate are labeled RINO's by the likes of Glenn and Rush.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. I have to admit that I've been feeling a little self-conscious reading this stuff about "RINOs," etc.

I don't mind saying that I often vote Republican in local elections and voter issues. But the Presidential elections and national issues usually have me in a quandry. I've voted Democrat twice now and strongly regret my Obama vote (I think Bill Clinton was pretty good, but other issues distracted from all that he did well as President).

Anyway, both parties now seem to want total allegiance, which is really polarizing the country, imo. It's complicated in some ways, but to actually think about things and vote the issues seems superior to just blindly going along with what the party bosses tell us to do.
 
Bob Maxey said:
You really think Conservatives are not compassionate? I suppose you think compassion means paying the bills of the lazy, cradle to grave, generation after generation, huh?
Click to expand...

Conservative leaders are working overtime to eliminate all public services to low-income/no-income citizens. The vast majority of the Republican party marches in lockstep. Where is the compassion?

Your ignorance* of the workfare system, which has been repeatedly discussed at length in other threads here, does not support or justify your extreme position or statements. WORK is a required for aid under TANF (formerly called "welfare").

[Ignorance is lack of knowledge, not a commentary on the intelligence of the poster.]

Bob Maxey said:
Please leave us alone because clearly you lack some measure of understanding. Most of us want people to work; we do not want to fund their lazy lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Are you saying I'm stupid? Compassionate conservative is an oxymoron*. If that hits close to home then maybe it is something you should think about.

[ox
 
Frisco said:
Those are good points, Crude. It's just that they speak to the point I'm making, not to the one that I think you're making (stop retirement benefits, welfare, food stamps, etc?): we have a system that is flawed but needed.
Click to expand...

If you wanted equality for everyone then communism would be the way to go. We are not equal. Millionaires shouldn't be taxes more because they have more. And poor people shouldn't get more because they have less. The system is most definitely flawed.

But if that is really how you feel, then I have nothing else to add.
 
Crude said:
If you wanted equality for everyone then communism would be the way to go. We are not equal. Millionaires shouldn't be taxes more because they have more. And poor people shouldn't get more because they have less. The system is most definitely flawed.

But if that is really how you feel, then I have nothing else to add.
Click to expand...
The richest people in the nation pay a far lower percentage in taxes than I do. The poor people that get "more" are barely getting enough to survive. I would definately say the system is flawed.
 
Crude said:
If you wanted equality for everyone then communism would be the way to go. We are not equal. Millionaires shouldn't be taxes more because they have more. And poor people shouldn't get more because they have less. The system is most definitely flawed.

But if that is really how you feel, then I have nothing else to add.
Click to expand...

It isn't about "equality for everyone," let alone communism. That is quite a leap from just wanting to help citizens who need it.

Do you feel like a communist if you help an old lady across the street or donate a few dollars to the food bank or tithe at your church? Do you feel like anything at all other than helpful?

I don't know where the "millionaires shouldn't be taxed more" came as a response to a post of mine, but now that it's brought up with me, I'll address it. Most (but not all) wealthy people in the U.S. pay miniscule income taxes as compared to lower income wage earners, percent-wise. That is well known.

Dollar-wise they pay more, of course, but not as a percentage of their income. I'd like to see changes in the tax code that remedy that, and sometimes I think a flat rate tax would be the answer, although that would be very difficult to implement in todays IRS mess of a tax system. Trying to unravel that just to set a flat tax rate would take years.
 
noah way said:
Have you looked at the qualifications necessary to receive aid? Calling it a "handout" makes it seem like graft. True poverty is required. Look at the financial definition of poverty, then at the paltry amount of aid people are eligible for ONLY if they work.

A civilized society takes care of ALL of its members.
Click to expand...

So it seems you have trouble with my use of the term handout? I didn't mean for it to be derogatory in any way. What is a better term that may be used for giving the needy money, food, shelter, etc?

I completely agree that a civilized society needs to care of all of its members. Perhaps you are misquoting me? I am not sure. I would think that my stance on these issues is pretty clear (I agree with nearly everything you have ever said on the matter) based on how long we have been active regarding said topics.
 
lordofthereef said:
So it seems you have trouble with my use of the term handout?
Click to expand...

Terminology is critical.

The global corporate-financial complex, their political stooges and their megaphone media have "successfully" (for lack of a better word) changed the dialogue of the financial crisis (jobs, unemployment, slash and burn economics, concentration of wealth, etc.) to a DEBT crisis. Countries in Europe don't have employment problems, they have DEBT problems.

So yes, I have a problem with the term handout. It's really assistance to the poor, the unemployed and the underemployed, with the context being that the vast majority of them are in that position precisely because of the actions of the global corporate-financial complex.

"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime."
-- Honor
 
lordofthereef said:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/
There is a great (and interesting) article. Google is good. :)
Click to expand...

Some interesting notes from that article: The more you make the more you are taxed...until you become "mega-rich". Just so we understand capital gains, it's essentially earnings from investments, it's not work per say. I suppose one could argue that if they did actually earn their money it would be WAY higher based on the scale in the article. The reason capital gains are taxed lower is to encourage people to invest instead of hoard. I suppose we could raise capital gains taxes, but that will hurt your 401k too.

Note that Mr buffet wanted to tax the super rich like himself more. What a noble guy huh? Offering to take some money off of every one of his super rich friends to help us all. So why doesn't he write the IRS a little bigger check each year? Because he's blowing smoke.

I don't see anything that could be changed here without hurting all of us. But fine lets do it. Now, what about the leeches that are doing NOTHING for society and are getting a free ride? Can we make them greeters at walmart one day a week?
 
OutofDate1980 said:
Sounds a bit like attacking the messenger. :(
Click to expand...

It's called character assassination....so? He's no different then the people in this thread trying to help the poor. He wants to do it with other peoples money. IF you want to help the poor do it!?! But why force others to? And for crying out loud, why funnel it through the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom