What's new

a couple proposals

♪alt13

Well-Known Member
1. Change the way we hand out food stamps.

As it is now you qualify for max food stamps if you are unemployed. Some of the employees who work for my fiance don't want too many hours because it will decrease their gov assistance meaning that they work more but make the same.

If we gave out assistance based on a scale with a plateau we would provide both an incentive to better ones self and a disincentive to be a freeloader.

Incentive
We could set max food stamps @ min wage x 30 hrs per week(I know this is overly simple but you get the picture) and have it stay max until someone hit $9 an hour x 40 hrs a week. After reaching the end of the plateau have it taper off slow enough that people had an incentive to continue doing better.

Disincentive
If you don't work at all you should be given enough to survive on the cheapest of foods; eggs, potatoes, peas, oatmeal, etc.


2. Vocational rehab should be for people who are trying but going nowhere.

Let's stop giving junkies government money for clothing and equipment and access to a career counselor. Let us instead use those resources for the poor ******* that has held a full time job for minimum wage for 2+ years.
 
83% of all Food Stamp benefits are paid to childern, the elderly or the disabled. Even if you scaled down FS payments to $0 for all the folks who can work but don't or won't, I'm not sure you'd be making much of dent at all.
 
83% of all Food Stamp benefits are paid to childern, the elderly or the disabled. Even if you scaled down FS payments to $0 for all the folks who can work but don't or won't, I'm not sure you'd be making much of dent at all.

I'm not worried about the money. I'm sure this would cost more. I'm worried about the incentive to be a ****in bum. It would definitely make a dent in the freeloaders and provide better help to those who are trying.
 
So someone working 30 hours instead of 40 hours a week is a bum?
I like the idea of decreasing average hours worked per week, and giving more people jobs , so that more people get into the work force, and more workers have more leisure time.
I invoke my veto power on your proposal.
 
May I add to your proposal? Just like WIC, there should only be certain foods and brands available for purchase with food stamps. I live by a 7-11 and it is a weekly occurrence to see someone buying a bag full of candy, Slurpee's for kids and friends, and soda or Gatorade. I don't judge people's situations - at least I try not to - and maybe they need those things... But I doubt it. No more prime rib or NY steaks and seafood. No more 12 packs of Pepsi. No more donuts. Basics and staples like HH mentioned above.
 
I wouldn't really have a problem with a WIC type setup, but it really does add complications that won't accomplish all that much. It seems like it's just something that makes people not as resentful about the program. My guess is that most the time people see what looks like extravagance using food stamps is the result of the family being exceptionally frugal the entire month and having a little bit left over and trying to have a little treat like any normal human being would want.

People talk about folks with nice things like cell phones and such and using food stamps, but not everyone on food stamps has been on them for years and years. For a lot of people, I'd guess a pretty good portion of people, food stamps are a temporary thing. Should people have to completely destroy every good thing or every luxury item they have in order to get food stamps to help with a temporary situation?

It's the attitudes that if you're gonna use food stamps you should only eat rice and beans that makes me question weather these programs should exist at all. Not because people aren't being helped, but because the people doing the helping (the taxpayers) get such a sense of superiority and authority in regard to the person taking assistance. The idea is that if I'm paying for your food you should eat like a dog in a third world country. If I'm going to help someone I want them to maintain a certain level of normalcy in how they live and hopefully they can maintain at least a shred of their dignity.
 
Incentive
We could set max food stamps @ min wage x 30 hrs per week(I know this is overly simple but you get the picture) and have it stay max until someone hit $9 an hour x 40 hrs a week. After reaching the end of the plateau have it taper off slow enough that people had an incentive to continue doing better.

Foo snaps have a work incentive already. As you make more, the value goes down but not directly proportional as to not disincentive working.

Thanks to Reagan and Clinton, most programs have incentives to work such as EITC (RR) and TANF only lasing five years (Clinton) -- unless you're a native living on a reservation where nobody works, in which case, you get it indefinitely.


I'm not worried about the money. I'm sure this would cost more. I'm worried about the incentive to be a ****in bum. It would definitely make a dent in the freeloaders and provide better help to those who are trying.

No program provides an "incentive to be a ****in bum" more than social security, something that every single one of these mouth breathers staring down their noses at single mothers will get. And yeah, they all paid blah blah - well, many of these people "paid there fair share" into food stamps. Are we all to get in the bread line and demand a bag of apples a week because it's our fair share?
 
Foo snaps have a work incentive already. As you make more, the value goes down but not directly proportional as to not disincentive working.

Thanks to Reagan and Clinton, most programs have incentives to work such as EITC (RR) and TANF only lasing five years (Clinton) -- unless you're a native living on a reservation where nobody works, in which case, you get it indefinitely.
Barely. A single mom with one child who makes $11 bucks an hour will get like $30 bucks, but my unemployed, alcoholic, couch surfing bum ex-friend gets $240.

I don't look down on single moms. The single mom that works to buy her kids school clothes should get $300 and my bum friend should get just enough so that he doesn't starve($100 bucks a month) when his bum *** gets a job he can have more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ema
Barely. A single mom with one child who makes $11 bucks an hour will get like $30 bucks, but my unemployed, alcoholic, couch surfing bum ex-friend gets $240.

I don't look down on single moms. The single mom that works to buy her kids school clothes should get $300 and my bum friend should get just enough so that he doesn't starve($100 bucks a month) when his bum *** gets a job he can have more.

To be fair, that single mother will pay zero income taxes and will receive about $3500 between EITC + child tax credit. $300/month with no strings attached to foo snaps, etc. is nothing to sneeze at.

But yeah, sane/competent single people getting aid is not a good idea in many cases. I don't mind temporary aid but the example you give is b.s.

I feel bad for single mothers, but we do have some programs to assist them: Daycare assistance, public education, Boys and Girls Club covers the outside school hours when a woman would be finishing an 8 hour shift, pell grants, government housing assistance.

I'd like a system with volunteer daycare after school hours, something similar to PTA. I can't think of many better ways to donate time and help the community than assisting broken families work toward the self sufficiency.
 
Foo snaps have a work incentive already. As you make more, the value goes down but not directly proportional as to not disincentive working.

Thanks to Reagan and Clinton, most programs have incentives to work such as EITC (RR) and TANF only lasing five years (Clinton) -- unless you're a native living on a reservation where nobody works, in which case, you get it indefinitely.




No program provides an "incentive to be a ****in bum" more than social security, something that every single one of these mouth breathers staring down their noses at single mothers will get. And yeah, they all paid blah blah - well, many of these people "paid there fair share" into food stamps. Are we all to get in the bread line and demand a bag of apples a week because it's our fair share?

SSI does but technically that is run by SSA so potato potahto.
 
I wouldn't really have a problem with a WIC type setup, but it really does add complications that won't accomplish all that much. It seems like it's just something that makes people not as resentful about the program. My guess is that most the time people see what looks like extravagance using food stamps is the result of the family being exceptionally frugal the entire month and having a little bit left over and trying to have a little treat like any normal human being would want.

People talk about folks with nice things like cell phones and such and using food stamps, but not everyone on food stamps has been on them for years and years. For a lot of people, I'd guess a pretty good portion of people, food stamps are a temporary thing. Should people have to completely destroy every good thing or every luxury item they have in order to get food stamps to help with a temporary situation?

It's the attitudes that if you're gonna use food stamps you should only eat rice and beans that makes me question weather these programs should exist at all. Not because people aren't being helped, but because the people doing the helping (the taxpayers) get such a sense of superiority and authority in regard to the person taking assistance. The idea is that if I'm paying for your food you should eat like a dog in a third world country. If I'm going to help someone I want them to maintain a certain level of normalcy in how they live and hopefully they can maintain at least a shred of their dignity.

These are all good points, and I agree with you on just about all of it. That being said, I still stand by what I wrote originally, but maybe with some clarification.

Should people have to completely destroy every good thing or every luxury item they have in order to get food stamps to help with a temporary situation?

Of course, every situation is different, but for the most part I would say yes. You lost your job and you have bills coming up that you can't pay? Sell your 65" HDTV and pick up a free one on KSL for the interim. Cancel your DirectTV or Comcast cable for a few months, or if you're in a contract, scale it down to the bare minimums. Drop the data plans from your phones for a few months. I promise, you don't need to be on the web 24/7. You've got three cars with stupid payments? Sell one. Sell two. Park one, drop the insurance to comp only and get a buss pass. There are tons of things that probably should happen before someone should "need" assistance. Do I think people should sell their homes and live in a box down by the river? No. Wants Vs. Needs should be paramount in this situation.

When the housing bubble went boom and all of the people I knew that were either builders, mortgage lenders, or flippers were losing their homes, I watched as they kept all of their toys, their expensive cars, their lavish lifestyles, etc. all while filing chapter 7's and getting any/all gov't assistance possible. Sure, that's what it's for, and like franklin said, I guess we all have "paid into it", but to see these same people use their food stamp dollars to fund neighborhood BBQ's with steaks, dogs, chicken, cold drinks, and deserts... It boils the blood. I had a friend proudly explain how he couldn't use the entire monthly amount even if he tried, so he'd go to Costco and buy the expensive baby food (like fifty bucks a box) and then return it the next day for a gift card that he'd use to buy gas or DVD's.

If I'm going to help someone I want them to maintain a certain level of normalcy in how they live and hopefully they can maintain at least a shred of their dignity.

I don't want or expect people to eat like dogs in third world countries, that is silly. What I do want and expect is for there to be some sort of checks & balance going on. Families in need should be given "needs", not whatever the Hell they want. WIC allows for certain staples, and I think that the food stamp program should be the same. There is nothing wrong with Western Family style products, and they are often 30 to 50% less than the name brand stuff. The Mo's have the right idea; when someone needs assistance, they go to the Bishop's Storehouse, or whatever it's called, and they go through a shopping list with someone who works/volunteers there (the shopping list is done in advance with someone in the ward) and they put the food into a cart. Almost all of it is either packaged and made by the church, (out of their canneries or bakeries) and the rest is non-name brand food. Instead of giving a family $500.00 a month to spend on whatever the crap they want, how about $250.00 per month and a shopping list with approved food items on it.

It's not about looking down on people, since I've been there before and so have lot's of my friends and family. Everyone goes through struggles, loses a job, loses a loved one, etc., but that shouldn't give the state the right to be wasteful with tax payer monies. The majority of this lies on the shoulders of the offenders, and unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done about that. People, by their very nature, will take a mile when offered an inch. (guilty)

</soap box>

I <3 you, Brigham.
 
Now let us bitch about Voc rehab. Seriously most junkie's are going to sell whatever tools you buy them. A sober person who has held a crap job for a few years will likely appreciate it and use the opportunity to actually better them self. Plus then their will be an opening for their crap job that they quit, let the dope heads apply for that.

It really frustrates me when someone gets $2500 worth of tools that I had to work my *** off for, because they got caught with heroin. Makes me want to buy a balloon and take a nap in a gas station restroom, maybe then I can get some free ****.
 
Top