Food Stamps & Welfare - Are citizens too dependent on the government?

[D3ATHS1NBUNCH3S]

If this applies to the 2012 election thread, I apologize.

Should welfare and food stamps exist? Are we as a nation too dependent on the government?

Personally, I think that they should exist, but you should be drug tested, and there should be a timeframe you can have a job.

 

[Nicksfix]

I'll admit that there are those out there that need this aid.
I'll also admit that that there are those out there who are abusing this aid.

Case in point, (I have heard and seen this many times over), which really kind of pisses me off.

"why should I work 40+ hours a week and only get XXX.xx amount of dollars, when I can sit on my ass at home - do nothing (putting on a farce) and get paid the same amount of money?" This is the bull part of it.

I totally agree that drug testing for recipients of this be MANDATORY !!! No ifs ands or buts about it. Also as a recipient of this, you should only be allowed to claim (2 or 3) children, at the max. This crap of some ho-bag addict spreading her legs, popping out another kid, just to claim more money from us taxpayers is for the birds. I think this limitation may already be in effect, I'm not 100% positive here.

Cut them off (timeframe, as mentioned), make them (the milkers of this) find a job, even if it is at McDonalds or wherever. At least they are working.

Oh yeah, where is my welfare Hummer, Cadillac, Beamer, Benz ? I've seen this also. First of the month, downtown Canton, Akron, Cleveland, you see all the luxury rides right on front of the Welfare office, "I'm Here to get my check"

 

[Dennisch]

Oh yeah, where is my welfare Hummer, Cadillac, Beamer, Benz ? I've seen this also. First of the month, downtown Canton, Akron, Cleveland, you see all the luxury rides right on front of the Welfare office, "I'm Here to get my check"

Pictures would be funny. I can see a new meme.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I for one believe that every government employee and people using government aids in the form like you just said should be drug tested.

Even the Senator and President should be drug tested.

 

[Joel]

I have a cousin who did just that. Her and her boyfriend foubd a relatively high paying construction job (25$/hr I think), but it was only a 1 month contract. When the contract was up, she stayed on government aid for as long as she could, because "why would I get a job that pays less than the government gives me?"

 

[-Cheezman-]

It's the governments' fault for not having a better vetting process to weed out mooches from those who actually do need financial assistance.

I'd rather my tax dollars go toward helping someone who is disabled live a slightly better life than going toward invading another Middle Eastern country.

 

[Sam48]

Surprisingly, I would agree with everyone so far. Before long though, someone will most certainly make a completely null contrary argument, and there shall be one massive face palm.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

Obviously, those that are disabled are not part of the equation here, just to clarify.

Every month I see individuals using the EBT card (an electronic debit card) purchasing King Crab Legs, Jumbo Shrimp, Ribeye's/Strips/Porterhouse etc, many times at full price. Not that you or I should dictate what others eat and plan the entire month's usage/budget, but the decision making is often astonishing.

Why not add an element or a portion of the excellent WIC program, which mandates items such as fresh fruits and vegetables are purchased. Milk, cheese, bread, peanut butter, etc. Why? Because the program is designed to provide good nutrition for pregnant mothers and of course the unborn child.

But for children who have been born..... umm good luck? The EBT program allows for a cart full of sugar and budgeting decisions from A to Z and beyond. There is a logistic hurdle, sure, but in some households, the benefit would be significant.

 

[Nicksfix]

Obviously, those that are disabled are not part of the equation here, just to clarify.

Every month I see individuals using the EBT card (an electronic debit card) purchasing King Crab Legs, Jumbo Shrimp, Ribeye's/Strips/Porterhouse etc, many times at full price. Not that you or I should dictate what others eat and plan the entire month's usage/budget, but the decision making is often astonishing.

Why not add an element or a portion of the excellent WIC program, which mandates items such as fresh fruits and vegetables are purchased. Milk, cheese, bread, peanut butter, etc. Why? Because the program is designed to provide good nutrition for pregnant mothers and of course the unborn child.

But for children who have been born..... umm good luck? The EBT program allows for a cart full of sugar and budgeting decisions from A to Z and beyond. There is a logistic hurdle, sure, but in some households, the benefit would be significant.

+1 👍

Also, if I may ask, how are these people getting their alcohol and tobacco ? I thought that these were commodities that they were not able to purchase while being on such a program.

Are they cashing in their checks at a "shady market" or doing illegal activity on their EBT card as it is called ?

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

Alcohol and tobacco are not allowed to be purchased with food stamps or EBT cards. That stuff you can buy cheap from people who steal it though!

Stolen TIDE has a large following in Indianapolis for crying out loud.

 

[Keef]

There are plenty of people who need help. Where that aid comes from is up for debate. Fact is, many people are now dependent on the government, and many of those dependents are also the most scrutinized by government authority for simply trying to live.

It's not debatable, though, that they would not be dependent on the government if the government did not offer aid. And it shouldn't. Aid should be provided by people and organizations in the community that can cater to specific needs, not just broad programs that can easily be taken advantage of. There's plenty of compassion in this country to take care of their fellow citizens but it's hard to find when they're forced to compete with virtually limitless government subsidies.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

People nd organizations in the majority of communities could not afford it.

 

[Keef]

The issue of dependency is a deep part of the whole economics umbrella.

Basically, lower taxes and fewer regulations make it easier for companies to do more business. When they do more business they need more production. To do more production they hire more people. But that's not the environment we have.

Either way, if there was zero government help then needy people would be forced to either work or die. The choice is their's. Nobody has any moral obligation to help anybody else because if they're forced to help others then they are slaves, by definition. Compassion aside, it would be the poor peoples' responsibility to take care of themselves and I'd wager most of them wouldn't simply sit around and starve to death when faced with no other choice.

The problem is the choice. There exists an option that allows you to be dumb, lazy, worthless. If that option didn't exist then you couldn't be any of those things.

 

[Nicksfix]

Stolen TIDE has a large following in Indianapolis for crying out loud.

Why those dirty crooks ......

 

[Encyclopedia]

Either way, if there was zero government help then needy people would be forced to either work or die. The choice is their's. Nobody has any moral obligation to help anybody else because if they're forced to help others then they are slaves, by definition. Compassion aside, it would be the poor peoples' responsibility to take care of themselves and I'd wager most of them wouldn't simply sit around and starve to death when faced with no other choice.

The problem is the choice. There exists an option that allows you to be dumb, lazy, worthless. If that option didn't exist then you couldn't be any of those things.

Except if you're too sick to work, in which case the only option would be death.

But I understand what you're saying though and agree for the most part. I think that people's compassion would be enough to help the genuinely needy.

It should definitely be much harder to leech off the system. A too generous benefits no one, not even the leeches in the long run as they'll turn cronically lazy.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

I grew up in the public school system, and the majority of my friends were below the poverty line. I knew dozens of people whose parents were working themselves to death to keep their families housed and fed, and they still wouldn't have made ends meet without the government aid they got. On the other hand, I've only known two or three people who actually got aid they didn't need, and they were all middle-class kids exploiting the system. (All of whom had put themselves into poverty through drugs or drinking, by the way.)

The problem with setting limits on how many kids you can have, or pulling it from drug users, or whatever, is that in the end there are still kids depending on that aid. No matter how reprehensible the conduct of the parent, is that a reason to let a kid who's done nothing wrong starve? It'd be nice if we could figure out a system that could make sure the money went to the right places, but can you imagine the size of such a system and the costs of running it?

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

Work or starve to death? That might be the most shortsided post I've ever read on gtp. Anyone currenlty relying on assistance who is suddenly shut off has a myriad of options in between work or starvation. It's not that definitive or absolute. Many choices are illegal, unfortunately. And the number of people who would decide to go down that path would be large i suspect.

Work or starve to death... When children are involved? That is incredible when you think about it. What about when the parent gets sick? Work or die again because a doctor's visit is expensive, much less the medication? The child?

The problem with setting limits on how many children you have is --- there is this thing called "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.". It's kind of a big deal.

Lastly, imagine a street with 10 modest houses on it. The street is in disrepair. 4 families have adult(s) who are working and scraping by. 2 were just laid off through no fault of their own and are looking for work. One
is disabled. The rest are abusing the system for $.

Should the government alter how they repair the road? Spend money equally for all families? Repair electircal lines equally? Sidewalks? Mail delivery? Public safety on the street? Fire department equally? Public defending if needed?

Keef - I have a question. Do you have much interaction (in business, socially, etc) with individuals who are on any sort of government assistance? Just curious.

 

[Danoff]

I for one believe that every government employee and people using government aids in the form like you just said should be drug tested.

Even the Senator and President should be drug tested.

...and why would that be?

 

[lbsf1]

In A level history (democracy and dictatorship) we were debating about this last week. Mostly about the new liberal views (1906) about deserving and undeserving poor, and how the leader at the time thought that benefits would make people lazy. Before welfare people could not afford to live and be lazy, however now with benefits they can live and be lazy, exactly what the leader at the time was worried about.

We saw a short video clip illustrating the problem of unemployment in leeds. People want jobs however cannot get them, funding is being cut in services that help people get jobs so people cannot get any help to get a job.

If there were adequete number of jobs available then I agree that a major overhaul of benefits can happen, however at the moment applying a time limit would be a severe problem to deserving poor who are trying to get a job. We need to get the economy going before anything else, as to a certain point that will help sort out lots of other things.

What however does annoy me is how even after people say to the press what their intentions are on recieving benefits then why don't the government/council remove it from those people.

 

[Pupik]

I for one believe that every government employee and people using government aids in the form like you just said should be drug tested.

And who's paying for that lovely drug-testing service? Especially one that will likely root out a whopping 5% of welfare recipients, thus negating any benefit. Or we could just round them up for failure to comply, and toss them in overcrowded prisons for victimless crimes, too.

Sounds like a great idea, but most dealers (you know, the ones who are "always on welfare") also don't use their own product, but a pointless bit of feel-good legislation.

I'd rather my tax dollars go toward helping someone who is disabled live a slightly better life than going toward invading another Middle Eastern country.

Yeah, that...Don't get me started (we're rebuilding their infrastructure instead of our own).