posted on June 12, 2001 09:27:54 AM new
Gotta' abuse a lot of food stamps to come up to the $550 billion taxpayer paid real estate schemes in Texas and New Mexico.
If you do abuse that many somehow, you still gotta' go another $100 million or so to pay back the taxpayer for his investment in the new Texas Ranger Stadium for dumbya.
But keep on abusin' 'em, cause the taxpayer never got paid back for the cost of bailing out the savings and loan scandal for brudda' Neil.
posted on June 12, 2001 10:00:24 AM new
mark090-I think the EBT thing instead of paper coupons is to avoid fraud; selling the paper food stamps. This way, the person with an EBT card they are SOL if they went and sold it, because the money for food and other benefits are deposited like direct deposit into the card each month.
posted on June 12, 2001 10:01:26 AM new"Sure, I was abusing the notorious republican ignorance in posting it..."-krs
That is the first step to recovery, you know.
"Or is it a conservative solution to oppose abortion so that there will be that many more starved pieces of evidence of republican frugality?"-krs
As it is so often with liberals, you fail to see the forest for the trees. Living in Detroit my whole life, I have seen more abuse of the welfare system than legitimate need. All of the drug dealers I know/knew have to have special accounts set up with the local party store/check cashing guy so they can sell these food stamps at a discount to the merchants. Here's how it works: The crack head mother of 5 gets her monthly allotment of food stamps and promptly goes to the dopeman to exchange the foodstamps for their drug of choice at around .50c on the dollar depending on the market at the time. The dopeman after doing this hundreds of times in a month has a significant amount food stamps that he is not going to buy food with so he has a friend that owns an establishment that can get rid of them. The store owner charges the dopeman .75-.80c on the dollar (again - depending on the market and the amount one wishes to sell). The dopeman has now not only converted his food stamps to money, but he has made an extra .25c on every food stamp which can add up because they will, depending on their level of sales, cash in Thousands of dollars of food stamps. We call it the dopeman commodoties trading. In Detroit its the Arabs that have a corner on the market of party stores, and end up making thousands of dollars on their end as well, because they profit .25c on each dollar, too. It's a very interesting black market, and set up by very intelligent, although certainly not law abiding people. It all seems amazing until I realize that EVERY WEEK I am paying hundreds of dollars in to their pockets. That's when I get pissed. These are not isolated incidents, unless of course you feel they are isolated because you don't see them. Thousands of dollars are made by the dopemen and the merchants every month when those stamps come, and it is certainly when I do the math, a multi-million dollar fraud upon the taxpayers of this country. The debit cards are a great idea, and will make the abuses harder, but business is still business, and The dopemen already have worked out new deals with the merchants, so that the crack head mothers of 5 with her starving babies at home can go buy expensive food, for which they will get around .35 - .40c on the dollar, so that the dopemen can still cut their deals with the merchants, except that now they just sell the food back to the merchants at a profit for all involved.
When you fail to see the whole picture, you often wonder why people feel the way they do. Some, out of hate. Others, because we know better.
As far as the conservatives being against abortion only to bring starving babies in to this world; heres the problem with that. Nobody can dispute that illegitimate children are being born in droves nowadays. All the more reason for abortion right? Or that many will starve because of the evil Repooplicans? Again, you have to look at the whole picture. Why are illegitimate children being born in droves? The key difference is that liberals want to throw money at a problem and hope it goes away. We have been throwing money at the problems for decades and it continues to get worse. The liberal solution: Throw MORE money. Conservatives use logic in their approach, and want to know what the root is to the problem, because that is the only way to solve a problem, to get it at the root. Why are these babies starving? Why are so many being born without a father?
Dependancy
People have become so accostomed to the fact that the Government will solve all of their problems, that they don't take responsibility in what they are doing. This is primarily the fault of the mothers. These women know that if they have a baby by a man that they are taking a very good gamble. First of all, there is always the chance that the father will give her money to help take care of the kid - not all of it to the kid of course, but that isn't the point now is it? They also realize that it doesn't matter if the guy sticks around, because good old Uncle Sam will take care of everything. Not only will all of the necessities be taken care of, but if the guy has a job, they will come after him for child support. Then the next guy, and the next, and so on, and so on. And of course there is always the remote chance that one of their "baby's daddys" might actually stick around, but anyway it goes, she comes out a winner in that she can sit on her ass, or more properly, lay on her back, and the money will still be there. Anyone that doesn't understand how the system really works hasn't lived in it as long as I have, or seen how much jewelry these 'mothers on assistance' wear, or the expensive nail jobs, and hair - for what a job interview? Well, sort of.
This is a very real and widespread problem, and somehow I just can't believe it is only in Detroit. So that is the reason Conservatives want to cut back on alot of these programs, because they do more harm than good. They create a system that is taken for granted and gets people dependant on it. Once you have that, the snowball effect kicks in and we have more women making more babies, by more different babys daddys, who will grow up to have seen that adults don't need a job, and men don't need to be their for their children, and will have more babies, and on and on...
Conservatives aren't evil, they are just seeing the whole picture, and sometimes it hurts to correct a serious problem, but if it goes uncorrected, how much worse and more irresponsible can this society become, before the fabric of it is ripped in two, and we become, well, Rome.
posted on June 12, 2001 11:27:12 AM new
Care to comment about conservative evil in the thread describing activities of freepers in www.freerepublic.com?
Using detroit as typical of all recipients is hardly accurate or fair. Maybe you could include another area--perhaps the Watts district in Los Angeles, or Harlem in New York?
posted on June 12, 2001 01:03:24 PM new
Thank you for responding to my thread - so far. Let me take a moment and try to reply to a few of you.
hcross" He is baiting, don't any of you fall for it."
Only in the sense that I am trying to get a discussion going. I did make clear that I wasn't going to bash anyone in this thread, and I do not intend to.
bobbi355"I pretty well lost my respect for your posts. Not that you'll probably care anyway"
I was asked how I felt, how did it FEEL. I answered. Add to the list: I was angry, I wanted to lash out - strike back, and knew the futility of it all. When the Republicans used our US Constitution for a mere political ploy to embarrass Clinton and the Democrats, I felt like everyone in the town was lined up to piss on your mother's grave; like the Holy Bible being substituted for toilet paper in every public stall; like being raped and your home burnt to the ground and having everyone laugh at you for it and tell you that it means absolutely nothing. That was how the desecration of our US Constitution felt like to me. Now does anyone have even less respect for me?
Thank you KRS and Helen for getting this thread on track.
Deuce" Not exactly an easy question for anyone to answer, or explain. Who said Republicans wanted to do away with each and every Federal Special Program? Then I have to show how I'd replace each one!?! I'm not even aware of all of them!!!"
I'm confused, then, Deuce. I have read time and time again on this messageboard alone, not counting the media, political parties, and other places where conversations take place, that the Conservatives want to completely turn the clock back on social programs to where there was none. In defense of this position, several statements come out; such as, the re-distribution of wealth (communism) being a Prime Evil and that if everyone got a job, there would not be a need for social programs. Those with a more realistic approach have recently (to me, it's recent) mentioned that churches, family and the next-door neighbors could do the job adequately. That is what precipitated this thread.
To be fair, few if anyone knows the entire list of all the federally funded social programs. I hate to limit my question to just the most popular and well-known programs as there are many who would just like to see all of them done away with, whatever they may be. Certainly, the programs were put into place to cure some of society's worst ills, and truly have been modified over time by both political parties. Yet, in whatever form that we currently have them in, these social programs do serve a useful purpose. By ridding ourselves of them, we must have some other viable answer. If given a choice between paying for our current system and invoking a new system that does just as well, but costs less to nothing, why would I be an idiot and want the expensive method? I would never stand in the way of any program that would do at least as good a job if not better AND make it so that we pay less taxes!
So, I am confused. On the one hand, we all want to reduce our tax burden on ALL federal programs, not just social ones. But what would go in its place? Any realistic suggestions from anybody in the conservative/Republican crowd?
[b]roofguy:[/I] "There are no worthy charities not already funded by the government."
I am aware of quasi-religious charities that are already funded in small part by the government, local, state and federal. Thank you for pointing that out.
"In a nutshell, this is the difference between liberal and conservative views on charity. Conservatives really enjoy funding success, and despise funding continued failure. Liberals don't think it's anyone's business whether the funding is resulting in success or not."
I think, roofguy, that everyone wants to see their tax dollars spent on programs that succeed. Sometimes, positive results take a lot longer than we like since with many problems the program starts at a deficit and may not show positive results for years or even decades. Are you sure that the Liberal position that you stated above is not merely a reflection for us to be patient?
uaru" I wonder how many government workers are donating their time compared to the workers for these faith-based charities. I wonder if our federal food stamp program operates as efficiently as the faith-based charities."
I watch on 60 Minutes, the national news, and the local news as mostly everyone else has about the problems with paper food stamps. Here in Oregon, they phased that out about 6 or 7 years ago and replaced it with the debit card system. Didn't I hear that the debit card program was going to be instituted nationally by 1999? Did something occur to prevent that from happening?
posted on June 12, 2001 01:29:26 PM new
Jlpiece brings up the dependancy angle. This might be valid, but realize what this argument really is - it's advocating starving the poor to keep them from reproducing more poor.
I like The Ethical Spectacle. Maybe someone else will enjoy reading Jonathan Wallace's thoughts here http://www.spectacle.org/297/trag.html and/or browsing around the archives.
Those with a more realistic approach have recently (to me, it's recent) mentioned that churches, family and the next-door neighbors could do the job adequately. That is what precipitated this thread. Thank you for the explanation. I can now see where you are coming from.
Not wanting to stir anything, but I simply have never read anything similar to ...that the Conservatives want to completely turn the clock back on social programs to where there was none. Personally, I know I don't feel that way. Government programs do serve a purpose, obviously. Sure, there are people abusing the system, and many are using the aid for the ways it was intended.
Also, you asked Any realistic suggestions from anybody in the conservative/Republican crowd?
Throw realism out the window, but IMHO, I'd like to see the US take care of the US first, and other nations second. We've got entirely too many social ills domestically that need fixin'. Also, I have to question some of the government grants to the arts. I guess I just don't see how feces made to look like someone is worthy of govt subsidy. Perhaps I just don't get it, but I never was very artistic.
posted on June 12, 2001 02:59:09 PM new
I'd call my self a democrat (manly because of the health care issues).
But...Food Stamps? What in the world is the Government doing buying a Billion (?) dollars worth of ANYTHING and paying a full retail price for it??? Am I the only one that thinks the same amount of food could be purchased, and distributed for way less money. Leave the question of if the people drawing this assistance need it on the side (some need it, some are scamming the system). Why is the government buying what amounts to box cars full of food every day, and paying FULL RETAIL.
Do I sound like your "average" democrat?
[ edited by Microbes on Jun 12, 2001 03:03 PM ]
posted on June 12, 2001 03:14:54 PM new
The government isn't buying the food via the food stamp program, the people who receive food stamps are buying the food. I like it better that way.
When people buy the food, they sometimes buy name brand ketchup. When the government buys the food, sometimes ketchup becomes a vegetable.
The National Endowment for the Arts funds a wide variety of art related activity including education, writing, music, art and preservation of our cultural heritage.
posted on June 12, 2001 03:42:39 PM new
The government buys the tomatoes from the farmer to alleviate oversupplies and keep the market price high. It then sells them to Heinz at discount pricing and uses the money to administer the food stamp program and buy more tomatoes. Meanwhile Heinz can offer lower pricing at wholesale to the market so that the market can realize a higher profit from the sale of Heinz to food stamp recipients. The farmer is happy, the market is happy, the gemployees of governmental agencies are happy, and the government is happy to show that it does such beneficial things while suffering a very low loss of tax revenue.
posted on June 12, 2001 04:07:07 PM new
Deuce, it does not sound to me like you are a conservative. More like a mainstream moderate. I happen to agree with Buchannon that we should stop paying for Japan's and Germany's millitary every year. It's Sink or Swim time for them. I think we should stop supporting countries who end up unfriendly to us, although I do not wish to see anymore Samosa/Noriaga/Marcos/Shaw of Iran puppets that stir up hatred for all Americans abroad either. Doing that would be lowering our tax bill to be sure.
But, Deuce, historically, the Republican Party has been outraged at FDR for his social programs, calling it Communism or worse. FDR had much opposition to his programs and every decade has seen conservative Republicans trying to whittle away at them and cutting funding from them in order to fund mainly the millitary-industrial complex. As recent as the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill, which limited the amount of time that anyone can take avantage of these social programs, the conservative Republicans have been trying to do away with these programs. Sure - they now talk about "fixing" these programs, and for those measures taken that do fix a program, we're all for it! But for those measures that reduce the efectiveness of a program, I have to stand against it as it always costs more without the program in place than with it.
The other thing that conservative Republicans seem to use in an attept to disguise thier history is the constant complaining about loss and corruption. Take one Rush Limbaugh segment that I listened to a while back. He said that one program to retrain these folks that need it ended up with only one person actually graduating from it and that person went on to become a dishwasher! He railed about the waste of taxpayer dollars for this Liberal program and so forth. What he did not mention to viewers were the $800 hammers and $2,500 toilet covers the millitary buys! Misdirection. It's the tool of the politicians, so says the editor of the Washington Post and I agree with him. My point is that there is a lot of talk about "fixing" these programs and solving the "fraud and waste". But that, to me and from what I've seen over the decades, is simply a cover for the real agenda of the conservative Republicans. Maybe, even many newer Republicans buy into this line.
At any rate, if all the social programs went >>POOF!<< and conservatives waved a Magic Wand and >>POOF!<< >>POOF!<< a replacement set of their own design appeared and took just as good a care, what would it be, how would it work, what would it entail?
posted on June 12, 2001 04:43:32 PM new
Oh I almost forgot about reagans plan about serving ketchup as a vegetable lol. Now is that what they call "compassionate conservatism"? What still shocks me is how they wanted the election so bad, that they would steal it. We still dont have a "legal" president, just an appointed moron. Can someone please show me the part of the constitution that says 5 conservative judges can elect a president? They are in for trouble come next election. People never forgive, and they never forget.
posted on June 12, 2001 05:38:24 PM new
>I almost forgot about reagans plan about serving ketchup as a vegetable
It ranks right up there with this administrations plan to allow rotten meat to be sold to schools for our kids to eat.
I'm all for cutting waste, be it in the military (but be VERY careful here, trim the waste, but don't leave the armed forces with out the best weapons in the world), in social programs, or where ever money is wasted.
But checking to be sure the meat that is sold to schools is safe for human consumption is not a WASTE. I know (before anyone points it out to me) that this change of policy was PROPOSED by a "LOW LEVEL" cabinet member (Plausable deniablity???) but it was repugnant, and the clown that even proposed it should have been fired (if we have a "compassionate conservative" in office). The fact he still has his job speaks loads to me.
