A day of someone on Welfare... according to the GOP

[Iroscato]

Gettin' reeeeal fucking tired of the little people being picked on...

[salm]

So my appartement mate commits fraud and I butt raped for it? Sounds fair.

[TheHammer]

Again, classic tu quoque. Please cite where I said "Tax evasion is ok" or that "welfare scams are a bigger problem" or shut the fuck up. Since this particular thread is about welfare that's what we are talking about. Anything else is a redherring. Feel free to start a thread regarding tax evasion and solutions you'd like to propose.

No, it is not a red herring.

The point here is that if the federal government is going to NOT spend one million dollars extra and recover several million in taxes owed to it by the rich, it is STUPID to then spend one million dollars on 'welfare fraud' and recover a few hundred thousand by booting a handful of idiots off the food stamp rolls.

The only coherent explanation for why anyone would push for this status quo is massive raging classism. As in, when a rich person steals 100 dollars from the governemnt it's a peccadillo, but when a poor person "steals" one dollar it's a crime. And by "steal" I mean "spent the money they legitimately received in a way I don't approve of."

Your presumption that people are lackadaisical about wealthy tax evaders is a false one. I suspect it's viewed with equal if not greater disdain than welfare fraud. And it is a red herring we are not talking about tax evasion we are talking about the welfare system. My focus has been less centered on the fraud aspects and more centered on what would make the system work better. Statements that "Oh well we can't focus on welfare reform because we've got tax reform to do too" is non productive.

And raising this issue is not a red herring, because it's a tremendous inconsistency in the political platforms of America's dominant anti-welfare faction.

You came in here and basically seemed totally perplexed by Salm saying that tax evasion is too big a problem for us to take welfare fraud seriously by comparison. Literally, you said "Where the hell is that coming from?" When Salm explained you said "You need to cite some actual sources to make that sort of claim."

Salm said "The middle and upper class can shut the fuck up because they are systemic tax evaders"

A rather fucking ridiculous claim to make. The vast majority are not tax evaders and likely view both welfare fraud and tax evasion in the same negative light.

And my point is that if you weren't utterly ignorant of the numbers, you wouldn't need to ask for sources. The federal government's tax receipts are measured in the trillions, the SNAP program's budget is less than a hundred billion annually and fraud is in the single digit percent. From this basic knowledge alone it is easy to predict that tax evasion is a far, far larger problem than welfare fraud. And you really, really have to be obtuse not to understand why "tax evasion is a bigger problem" justifies saying "the middle and upper classes should stop using welfare fraud as a scapegoat."

You completely missed the point. I'm not going to explain it to you line by line go back and read what I just said. Simon I think you sometimes just have all these words in your head you just have to get them out into the computer whether they are actually relevant to the discussion at hand.

Because the system is fucking broken. In a working system you wouldn't be living on welfare, it should be there is a safety net and a basis from which you can eventually get off of welfare.

You already can't live on welfare by itself, not for any length of time. At best you can become dependent on someone who lets you crash on their couch while using your welfare money to pay for the groceries.

The thing is, there is NO reason why we should spitefully say "no, don't you DARE have anything other than minimum survival needs!" to people. Not just because "welfare is a base from which you can eventually get off welfare." It doesn't make sense. Your conclusion isn't following from your premise.

The point is the system isn't set up to get people off welfare, its set up to keep them perpetually on it barring a significant change in personal circumstance. My conclusion makes total sense, you lack the critical thinking necessary to see the forest through the trees.

I mean, think about it. Owning a suit is a luxury... but it improves your chances of getting a job. Owning a car or an Internet connection is arguably a luxury... but it exponentially improves your ability to get a job. Eating non-crummy food and keeping fit is arguably a luxury... but it improves your chances of getting a job. Having a bed you can get a good night's sleep in, instead of a cot or a broken-down sofa, is arguably a luxury... but actually getting some fucking sleep at night really makes it easier to get and hold down a job.

Certain foods like Lobster have little nutritional value though and thus don't improve health or employment chances. But again, that's a tree and we are looking for the forest right? The problem lies in the notion that someone on government assistance can afford luxuries that those who don't qualify for government assistance can't afford.

Forcing people to live in crappy conditions and be constantly distracted and weakened and undermined by the lack of things that even the lowest of the middle class take for granted is NOT the way to ensure that they get off welfare.

Who has proposed forcing "crappy conditions"?

I could get behind such a system, but you'd have to give it to everyone and NOT phase it out so there isn't a disincentive for people to improve their own financial situations. If someone can work 40 hours and get X dollars (Welfare+Pay) or they can work 30 hours and get X dollars (Welfare+pay) then you're really not giving them much reason to put in that extra effort. Instead, i'd raise tax rates on the top tax brackets, give EVERYONE a basic food allowance and let the rest sort itself out.

It's child's play to calibrate the welfare payouts so that your welfare payments decrease by, say, 50 cents per dollar of after-tax income you bring in. That's enough to create a healthy incentive structure... as long as you can make employers actually offer reasonable jobs with reasonable number of hours instead of keeping a host of temps working unpredictable 20-hour weeks on minimum wage.

That could work to an extent, but I still think having a basic government stipend afforded to everyone (aka social security for all) would be a better system and would guard against the specter of employers offering substandard pay since everyone is essentially given a tax funded "minimum wage" not tied directly to the employer.

Do you see some end in the near future to your need to have your income supplemented? If not, then you are in fact living on welfare. That's not to say its your only source of income or survival, but you don't see a near future where you will be off of it.

That is a foolish standard.

Getting off welfare would require her income to increase dramatically- which is an event she cannot possibly control!

I don't know if you've followed Broomstick's autobiographical anecdotes over the past several years on this forum, but she's made it quite clear over the years that she is surprisingly inventive and resourceful when it comes to saving money by doing economical things, and in seeking a wide variety of diverse employment opportunities. It's not every fiftyish married woman who suddenly takes up construction work to pay the bills, after all.

So in all seriousness... do you really think she should be "expecting" that soon she'll start making twelve or fifteen dollars an hour "in the near future?" If she knew how to do that without a good-sized dose of luck, she would already be doing so! And so would most of the other Americans in the same situation as her!

I'm not blaming broomstick for being stuck with a broken system. The entire point I'm trying to make is that many people cant get off the system, or see that they won't be able to improve their own personal circumstances to where being off the system is worth the struggles they would endure.

To me, that means the system is BROKEN, not merely flawed. In a working system, there would be some light at the end of the tunnel where assistance is no longer needed.

That light is, typically, "I get a job that pays fifteen dollars an hour for something close to forty hours a week."

No possible change to the welfare system will "fix" the fact that this is out of easy reach for a lot of Americans. We might "fix" it by changing something else. But until then, we design our welfare system for the economy we have, not the economy we wish we had.

Which is why I've repeatedly said a fix to welfare needs to be tied to increase in minimum wage, or changed to a radical extent to where its unrecognizable to the system we have today.

[TheHammer]

Yeah, a year I walked off a job after being physcially attacked by a co-worker.

The year before that I quite a job because I hadn't been paid for 12 weeks. Well, OK, I had been, but the check bounced. See lawsuit reference in my sig.

Yeah, a year or two ago it would have been "WTF?"

I'm succeeding because I keep trying, but not everyone is as stubborn as me. It's been 8 years since I earned a truly livable wage. That's with me being smart, educated (4 year degree), experienced, and healthier than a lot of people half my age. Lots of people in my position have the deck even more stacked against them.

What I'm hearing is "broken system".

I think where our communication is breaking down is you hear criticism of the welfare system as criticism of the people on welfare and that's not the case. While there certainly deadbeats receiving benefits, the vast majority are the "working poor" which I think is a travesty. Anyone working 40 hours a week should be able to have all of their basic needs met, and still have a little extra discretionary spending without having to apply for government benefits. And the fact that certain employers like Walmart whose entire business model is built around hiring employees, paying them low wages and teaching them how to receive government benefits is absolutely symptomatic of how fucked up the system is.

[salm]

A rather fucking ridiculous claim to make. The vast majority are not tax evaders and likely view both welfare fraud and tax evasion in the same negative light.

I agree. The vast majority are not tax evaders. And the vast majority of food stamp recipients are not welfare fraudsters. Therefore taking away rights from law abiding welfare recipients just to punish a few bad guys is wrong. Just like it would be bad to impose overly invasive and time consuming procedures on tax payers.

Maybe if you compare it to gun laws you can see what I mean. Would you ban law abiding citizens from having guns just because there are a couple of bad apples who abuse guns for crimes? Maybe you would but I guess the average redneck who is in favour of this Kansas law would have a hard time baning guns.

If you want to reform the welfare system in the USA I´d be fine with that. It is pretty bad. But reform it into the right direction and dont´turn it into an even larger pile of steaming bullshit like Kansas is doing.

Given the political climate, how likely do you think the US welfare system will be turned into something better?

[Broomstick]

The point is the system isn't set up to get people off welfare, its set up to keep them perpetually on it barring a significant change in personal circumstance. My conclusion makes total sense, you lack the critical thinking necessary to see the forest through the trees.

Um... what, exactly, do you want “the system” to do? Forcibly relocate people to areas with lower unemployment? Forcibly enroll them in training courses? I don't what you're looking for here.

Yes, some people will not “advance” however you care to define that. Give me some specifics here.

Certain foods like Lobster have little nutritional value though and thus don't improve health or employment chances.

Uh... what?

Lobster is a low-calorie (without butter or cream sauce) source of high-quality protein, B12, a half dozen minerals, and omega-3 fats. On what basis do you say it has “little nutritional value”?

The problem lies in the notion that someone on government assistance can afford luxuries that those who don't qualify for government assistance can't afford.

And that's bullshit. What it means is that people not on SNAP don't make lobster a priority. This is probably because higher income people have access to other forms of luxury than foods and choose them.

The truth is all those assholes bitching “I'm not on government aid and I can't afford lobster!” really CAN afford lobster, they just choose to purchase something else. Maybe it's new car or an iPad or a trip to the Bahamas or whatever, but they are able to purchase lobster.

Forcing people to live in crappy conditions and be constantly distracted and weakened and undermined by the lack of things that even the lowest of the middle class take for granted is NOT the way to ensure that they get off welfare.

Who has proposed forcing "crappy conditions"?

It's a consequence of both poverty and the current system, largely unintended but it's what actually happens in real life.

That could work to an extent, but I still think having a basic government stipend afforded to everyone (aka social security for all) would be a better system and would guard against the specter of employers offering substandard pay since everyone is essentially given a tax funded "minimum wage" not tied directly to the employer.

But then no one would ever get off welfare!

I'm not blaming broomstick for being stuck with a broken system. The entire point I'm trying to make is that many people cant get off the system, or see that they won't be able to improve their own personal circumstances to where being off the system is worth the struggles they would endure.

The problem here is that you keep talking about welfare being broken when the actual problem is the job market is broken. If higher wage jobs and more jobs in general were available people wouldn't need to stay on assistance. You're focusing on a better band-aid when what's really needed is to either avoid or heal the injury in the first place.

Yeah, a year I walked off a job after being physcially attacked by a co-worker.

The year before that I quite a job because I hadn't been paid for 12 weeks. Well, OK, I had been, but the check bounced. See lawsuit reference in my sig.

Yeah, a year or two ago it would have been "WTF?"

I'm succeeding because I keep trying, but not everyone is as stubborn as me. It's been 8 years since I earned a truly livable wage. That's with me being smart, educated (4 year degree), experienced, and healthier than a lot of people half my age. Lots of people in my position have the deck even more stacked against them.

What I'm hearing is "broken system".

Yes, but it's not the welfare system that's broken here.

It's the employment system.

Granted, the system DID work against a dishonest employer who committed theft against her employees, which is always going to be a problem in any system because dishonest people are dishonest. However, better employment opportunities might have meant I wouldn't have accept such crap jobs in the first place, and force employers to give a fuck if employees weren't so replacable.

Anyone working 40 hours a week should be able to have all of their basic needs met, and still have a little extra discretionary spending without having to apply for government benefits.

I agree – but that not being the case isn't the fault of the welfare system, it's the fault of the employment system.

[TheHammer]

TheHammer wrote:
The point is the system isn't set up to get people off welfare, its set up to keep them perpetually on it barring a significant change in personal circumstance. My conclusion makes total sense, you lack the critical thinking necessary to see the forest through the trees.

Um... what, exactly, do you want “the system” to do? Forcibly relocate people to areas with lower unemployment? Forcibly enroll them in training courses? I don't what you're looking for here.

Yes, some people will not “advance” however you care to define that. Give me some specifics here.

I've given some specifics. I'll reiterate through the rest of this post.

Uh... what?

Lobster is a low-calorie (without butter or cream sauce) source of high-quality protein, B12, a half dozen minerals, and omega-3 fats. On what basis do you say it has “little nutritional value”?

If it's that healthy maybe I should start eating lobster myself.

Regardless, there are many other unhealthy foods of low nutritional value that can be purchased with SNAP so that point still stands.

But then no one would ever get off welfare!

The point is, it ceases to become welfare if everyone gets it. The stigma goes away, the paperwork of who qualifies and who doesn't goes away.

Yes, but it's not the welfare system that's broken here.

It's the employment system.

Granted, the system DID work against a dishonest employer who committed theft against her employees, which is always going to be a problem in any system because dishonest people are dishonest. However, better employment opportunities might have meant I wouldn't have accept such crap jobs in the first place, and force employers to give a fuck if employees weren't so replaceable.

The welfare system and the employment system are completely intertwined. They are both means of providing and one is certainly impacted by the other.

Employees have become replaceable with the decline of unions and globalization. You can't directly force employers to give a fuck. Which is why I feel like the government stipend as a base wage for every citizen would effectively raise the minimum wage without having to directly affect small business. The "employers" and the wealthy still ultimately are paying for this in the form of taxes, but its not subject to their whims.

[Broomstick]

We could also have a multi-tier system of minimum wage (we actually already do, but let's not over complicated what I'm about to do).

Basically, if a business is, say, the owner and fewer than X number of employees (say, 6) then you can pay a "minimal minimum wage" - this would reduce the costs for the very small business owner and entrepreneur which is where a lot of screaming about increasing the minimum wage comes from (though not all). But if you have more employees than that then you have to pay a "livable minimum wage" - this would prevent the Wal-marts of the world from using the welfare system to pay for part of their labor costs.

[Simon_Jester]

Your presumption that people are lackadaisical about wealthy tax evaders is a false one. I suspect it's viewed with equal if not greater disdain than welfare fraud. And it is a red herring we are not talking about tax evasion we are talking about the welfare system. My focus has been less centered on the fraud aspects and more centered on what would make the system work better. Statements that "Oh well we can't focus on welfare reform because we've got tax reform to do too" is non productive.

Suffice to say that the tone and wording of your posts has multiple people convinced that you were taking an anti-welfare stance while being dismissive of (well founded) claims that tax reform is a larger problem.

if it was just me saying this I'd be obviously wrong. When it's multiple people, I suggest you look into how you phrase things so that you will be able to communicate clearly.

Salm said "The middle and upper class can shut the fuck up because they are systemic tax evaders"

A rather fucking ridiculous claim to make. The vast majority are not tax evaders and likely view both welfare fraud and tax evasion in the same negative light.

You demanded evidence for:

"Like I said a couple of posts up the amount of money lost to tax evasion is absurdly higher than the money lost to welfare fraud. Since it´s the middle and upper class are the ones who complain about a couple of poor people stealing few bucks from the government they need to shut the fuck up as long it is them who are stealing really big bucks from the government."

Now granted that this is, basically, classist reasoning- that if the upper and middle classes have failed to take aggressive steps to limit tax evasion in the recent pasts, they cannot justly take aggressive steps to limit welfare abuse. Just because the welfare changes would affect other people does not justify them in ignoring crimes committed by similar people.

This is a particularly significant argument against an anti-welfare political party that effectively approves of all tax loopholes for rich people... which happens to be one of the parties we've got here in the US.

Dismiss me for saying it if you like, but this is a significant issue given the actual shape of this debate. The people going "OH GOD NO POOR PEOPLE BUYING LOBSTER WITH FRAUD MONEY" are representatives of a political organization which has actively sought to limit our ability to stop rich people from buying lobster with fraud money.

The point is the system isn't set up to get people off welfare, its set up to keep them perpetually on it barring a significant change in personal circumstance. My conclusion makes total sense, you lack the critical thinking necessary to see the forest through the trees.

In this case, the forest is irrelevant to the fact that we're banging our heads into this particular tree.

The question of what you can and cannot buy on welfare has little to do with how to "fix" welfare. "Setting up the system to get people off welfare" by changing welfare itself is a doomed proposition and won't work, except insofar as you can "get people off welfare" by denying them further welfare... Which is sort of like solving your fishery management problem by dynamiting the lake.

Earlier you were saying that talking about tax reform was a red herring in this thread.

Talking about some vague "system reform" that has nothing to do with whether you can buy lobster (or potatoes, or paper towels) on a SNAP card is a red herring too.

Certain foods like Lobster have little nutritional value though and thus don't improve health or employment chances. But again, that's a tree and we are looking for the forest right?

On the matter of the tree, lobster is reasonably nutritious if you can find it cheaply, which in some times and places you can. If lobster is cheaper than hamburger our hypothetical SNAP recipient would be a fool not to buy it.

Moreover, even if it is a luxury, having occasional luxuries can itself be good for the psychological welfare of the recipient. As long as they stay within the (quite restricted) budget that is set out for them, I don't see the problem.

The problem lies in the notion that someone on government assistance can afford luxuries that those who don't qualify for government assistance can't afford.

There is no evidence I've seen yet that any person on government assistance has purchased any luxury that a typical working-class person could not afford by being equally frugal.

Except, of course, in cases of outright fraud, which this original article wasn't about. Buying lobster with a SNAP card is not welfare fraud in the normal sense of the word.

Forcing people to live in crappy conditions and be constantly distracted and weakened and undermined by the lack of things that even the lowest of the middle class take for granted is NOT the way to ensure that they get off welfare.

Who has proposed forcing "crappy conditions"?

Having only what you really need to survive can be pretty crappy conditions.

Which is why it's foolish to say "how can you be poor enough to be on welfare? You have a phone!" Or air conditioning, or video games, or whatever.

That could work to an extent, but I still think having a basic government stipend afforded to everyone (aka social security for all) would be a better system and would guard against the specter of employers offering substandard pay since everyone is essentially given a tax funded "minimum wage" not tied directly to the employer.

As to the forest...

I don't disagree with this, but you are in a poor position to accuse others of raising tax avoidance as a red herring if you're suggesting interesting but change-of-subject alternatives to welfare yourself.

I'm not blaming broomstick for being stuck with a broken system. The entire point I'm trying to make is that many people cant get off the system, or see that they won't be able to improve their own personal circumstances to where being off the system is worth the struggles they would endure.

Right- and how does this tie into the original issue being discussed?

[TheHammer]

Your presumption that people are lackadaisical about wealthy tax evaders is a false one. I suspect it's viewed with equal if not greater disdain than welfare fraud. And it is a red herring we are not talking about tax evasion we are talking about the welfare system. My focus has been less centered on the fraud aspects and more centered on what would make the system work better. Statements that "Oh well we can't focus on welfare reform because we've got tax reform to do too" is non productive.

Suffice to say that the tone and wording of your posts has multiple people convinced that you were taking an anti-welfare stance while being dismissive of (well founded) claims that tax reform is a larger problem.

if it was just me saying this I'd be obviously wrong. When it's multiple people, I suggest you look into how you phrase things so that you will be able to communicate clearl

Communication is perfectly clear. The problem is the brain bug that gets into peoples heads anytime anyone voices an opinion that isn't the "board approved narrative.". They attempt to read things between the lines that aren't there, and any attempt at clarification is given from an already poisoned well.

I don't disagree with this, but you are in a poor position to accuse others of raising tax avoidance as a red herring if you're suggesting interesting but change-of-subject alternatives to welfare yourself.

So my proposal to change welfare when the discussion is about welfare is a change of subject? No you fucking moron its not.

Tax avoidance is a separate matter entirely.

[Darth Nostril]

Tax avoidance is a separate matter entirely.

Only in your tiny little mind. The alleged millions lost in welfare fraud pale into insignificance compared to the tens of billions lost in tax fraud EVERY FUCKING YEAR!
You really are a special fucking snowflake aren't you?

[madd0ct0r]

Tax avoidance is a separate matter entirely.

Only in your tiny little mind. The alleged millions lost in welfare fraud pale into insignificance compared to the tens of billions lost in tax fraud EVERY FUCKING YEAR!
You really are a special fucking snowflake aren't you?

well, the hammer has a point. it's not like they are mutually incompatible as policies, any more then universal healthcare and repairing potholes on route 71 are mutually incompatible. Different in effect, scale, urgency and effect on people's lives, but still different subjects.

[salm]

Communication is perfectly clear. The problem is the brain bug that gets into peoples heads anytime anyone voices an opinion that isn't the "board approved narrative.". They attempt to read things between the lines that aren't there, and any attempt at clarification is given from an already poisoned well.

Then please explain why universal income is relevant to the question what should be allowed to be bought with food stamps.

[TheHammer]

Tax avoidance is a separate matter entirely.

Only in your tiny little mind. The alleged millions lost in welfare fraud pale into insignificance compared to the tens of billions lost in tax fraud EVERY FUCKING YEAR!
You really are a special fucking snowflake aren't you?

Do you understand what "separate matter" means? The tiny mind is yours my friend. I've not once said that Welfare fraud was a bigger problem than tax fraud. But since this thread is about welfare, discussions about tax fraud are not pertinent. Start a thread about tax fraud if you want to discuss that topic.

Communication is perfectly clear. The problem is the brain bug that gets into peoples heads anytime anyone voices an opinion that isn't the "board approved narrative.". They attempt to read things between the lines that aren't there, and any attempt at clarification is given from an already poisoned well.

Then please explain why universal income is relevant to the question what should be allowed to be bought with food stamps.

Its relevant in the sense that if you fix universal income you no longer need food stamps.

[salm]

Obviously, but the thread is about moving from one type of food stamps to another type of food stamps. Some people like type A better and some people like type B better. Do you prefer one of the types and if so why?

I don´t disagree with you that universal income could be good thing. What I am interested in is which mechanisms are behind some people wanting to deny certain things to people on welfare.

[TheHammer]

Obviously, but the thread is about moving from one type of food stamps to another type of food stamps. Some people like type A better and some people like type B better. Do you prefer one of the types and if so why?

I don´t disagree with you that universal income could be good thing. What I am interested in is which mechanisms are behind some people wanting to deny certain things to people on welfare.

What it boils down to the idea that people on welfare are on it because they need it to survive. It creates tension between the have-nots and the have-littles. The have-littles become rather envious when they see the have-nots on government assistance living just as well as a have-little lives without it.

Providing universal benefits solves all that. Everyone receives a base-line benefit - Social security for all. No one is singled out, and no one loses that benefit by bettering themselves, no stigma and no envy. Or so that would be the hypothesis...

[salm]

So do you prefer food stamp A or food stamp B?

[TheHammer]

So do you prefer food stamp A or food stamp B?

Its no longer a food stamp, just hard currency, similar to social security payments. Its more than semantics because this benefit would be provided to everyone, not just "those who qualify". Think of it as communism lite.

[salm]

I want to know if you prefer foodstamps that allow people to get lobsters with it or do you prefer foodstamps that do not allow people to get lobsters. This has nothing to do with universal income. Only with lobsters.

[TheHammer]

I want to know if you prefer foodstamps that allow people to get lobsters with it or do you prefer foodstamps that do not allow people to get lobsters. This has nothing to do with universal income. Only with lobsters.

I don't really care