Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

No, but tracking down the little money leaks like that will help. And the difference between the two analogys is that that 20 cents isn't of great benefit to anyone. Five or six million dollars saved by the government could mean that ten or twenty less people have to be laid off or lose benefits. Still a drop in the bucket compared to things like Stealth (to be fair, it was a legitimate avenue of research originally) or the Joint Strike Fighter, but it's still potentially real money.

[GlyphGryph]

20 cents a day is 77 dollars a year. Might not seem like much to you, but I'd have liked an extra 70+ dollars working as a cashier. If its happening every time you buy stuff because the same is being done to you in other situations, it's easily a few hundred a year.

But yeah, it's something they should clean up in general, its just... priorities, you know? You generally want to focus on the guy stealing your plasma TV before the cashiers skimming some pocket change. Still, its not bad in and of itself.

What IS bad is that the Republicans seem intent on dismantling anything that supports Democrats in any way (Public broadcasting, unions, etc.)

They're continuing their absurd political war - and they're winning.

[Nadaka]

One can make an argument over whether the middle of an historic economic downturn is really the best time to balance the budget by making sure pocket change doesn't leak out of food assistance, but I'm not one to complain; it's run of the mill "waste/fraud/abuse" good-government legislation...

It's far more than pocket change. You would not believe how easy it is for people to cheat the program, especially when the people who need it often have to cheat to get benefits (ironically because they keep tightening it up in an attempt to reduce fraud). That said, the anti-union bit is worrisome. It almost seems like the Republicans are trying to force Obama to tacitly endorse their agenda by holding the lower and middle classes hostage, but would Congress do that? Again, I mean

foodstamps is what? a percent of the budget between both state and federal? A quick google search seems to indicate that only 1% of that is fraudulent or incorrect. yep pocket change.

[Phmcw]

Hmmm, no it's rubbish.
Striking on that kind of help, not easily obtainable in America, can only be harmful, and won't help in any way.

Pocket change? Yes but then pocket change used directly on first necessity goods (I don't think you can buy many things on food stamp can you?) And that goes to poeple who need it (on some poeple that may just be a phase). Worse, parlemantary doesn't have infinite time, and that time is costly. Legal experts, and such are required, too.

So it's a stupid law, saving scrap on a matter largely underfunded, costly to make (as all laws) and wasting heir time on non-issue.

So these frauds screwed you again.

[Nadaka]

20 years ago, my family was on foodstamps after my parents seperated. That was when it was actual stamps. You can only buy food with it, had to break the bills to collect enough change to buy toilet paper and soap. With the new debit card based food stamps, that is no longer possible. It was also almost impossible to feed my mother and her 4 kids on $200 a month.

I have a plan that will eliminate all foodstamp fraud... Raise taxes and give food stamps to everyone.

[GlyphGryph]

Nadaka, if you're doing that you might as well just go for a basic income structure.

[PTTG??]

...Except for a couple segments entered from Page 15 Line 9 to Page 16 Line 12.  To wit-

‘‘(2) STRIKE AGAINST A GOVERNMENT. - For the purpose of subparagraph (A)(iv), an employee of the Federal Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, who is dismissed for participating in a strike against the Federal Government, the State, or the political subdivision of the State shall be considered to have voluntarily quit without good cause.

‘‘(3) STRIKING WORKERS INELIGIBLE. - Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no member of a family unit shall participate in the food stamp program at any time that any able-bodied work eligible adult member of such household is on strike as defined in the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 142(2)), because of a labor dispute (other than a lockout) as defined in section 2(9) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(9)): Provided, That a family unit shall not lose its eligibility to participate in the food stamp program as a result of one of its members going on strike if the household was eligible immediately prior to such strike, however, such family unit shall not receive an increased allotment as the result of a decrease in the income of the striking member or members of the household: Provided further, That such ineligibility shall not apply to any family unit that does not contain a member on strike, if any of its members refuses to accept employment at a plant or site because of a strike or lockout.’’.

...

You know, it's only AFTER the protest crackdowns that things turn ugly. It's only after the leadership turns petty that people stop seeing the leadership as legitimate and start seeing it as an enemy. And what is this legislation here, but an attack on workers, and a hint of what we may soon see for all striking workers.

[Leafsnail]

Maybe someone at the top of the Republican Party really likes Dickens, and wants to recreate the conditions.  I'm kindof surprised anyone was ok with having their names attached to that bill...

I have a plan that will eliminate all foodstamp fraud... Raise taxes and give food stamps to everyone.

Universal benefits are definitely a possibility (apart from anything else, it removes any disincentive to work that might come up).  On the other hand, it's not gonna be particularly palatable to anyone worrying about the dangers of socialism...

[Urist Imiknorris]

Mr. Burton shall soon be receiving some hate mail.

[Zrk2]

Maybe someone at the top of the Republican Party really likes Dickens, and wants to recreate the conditions.  I'm kindof surprised anyone was ok with having their names attached to that bill...

I have a plan that will eliminate all foodstamp fraud... Raise taxes and give food stamps to everyone.

Universal benefits are definitely a possibility (apart from anything else, it removes any disincentive to work that might come up).  On the other hand, it's not gonna be particularly palatable to anyone worrying about the dangers of socialism...

That would be me. Universal food stamps? OH HELL NO. That just screams 'Hello communism!'

[Criptfeind]

Would it help you if we called it democratic socialism?

How about welfare capitalism?

[GlyphGryph]

Yeah, they can spend it wherever and however they want. We're simply helping the various capitalist food markets turn a profit. Why, that's not communist at all!

Now, if we gave them FOOD, THAT would be communist. This changes some incentives and balances, but is still mostly free market.

[Nadaka]

That would be me. Universal food stamps? OH HELL NO. That just screams 'Hello communism!'

Not really. Socialism and communism are two completely separate things that are often incorrectly associated with each other. Universal food stamps are towards the far end of socialism by providing the means of acquiring basic necessities. Production is still in the hands of private individuals/corporations.  But communism would mean state owned/run farms providing rations to everyone.

I myself am not even fond of the idea of universal foodstamps, but it is likely a better solution to the tiny amount of fraud and waste than gutting the system.

[Criptfeind]

Yeah, they can spend it wherever and however they want. We're simply helping the various capitalist food markets turn a profit. Why, that's not communist at all!

Now, if we gave them FOOD, THAT would be communist. This changes some incentives and balances, but is still mostly free market.

Nah. It would not be communist even if we gave them food.

If they gave us food which we gave back though. That would be communist.

Humm... Now that I think about it, all the road building projects for the senator brothers around here could be thought of as communist, if it was not for the fact they did not pay taxes.

That would be me. Universal food stamps? OH HELL NO. That just screams 'Hello communism!'

Not really. Socialism and communism are two completely separate things that are often incorrectly associated with each other. Universal food stamps are towards the far end of socialism by providing the means of acquiring basic necessities. Production is still in the hands of private individuals/corporations.  But communism would mean state owned/run farms providing rations to everyone.

I myself am not even fond of the idea of universal foodstamps, but it is likely a better solution to the tiny amount of fraud and waste than gutting the system.

Whoh. I am pretty sure you are incorrect here. In Socialism the government does own the business. I am pretty sure you are (like we all are) thinking of Sweden, which is not 'Socialism.' They practices a form called democratic socialism, which is a much more mild version.

Edit: For clarification, I believe that communism in it's purer form can be thought of as anarchy+Socialism. Of course most people tend to think of communism as socialism and socialism as democratic socialism. (This leads down the line all the way to, at least, what we have in the US now with most people probably calling it capitalism.)

[Leafsnail]

That would be me. Universal food stamps? OH HELL NO. That just screams 'Hello communism!'

That'd be a kneejerk reaction.  It wouldn't have to be any more redistributive than the current system (although it'd be harder to commit fraud and harder to manipulate by, say, making people who go on strike ineligable for it).