Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dogma wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Sure it is. Try telling yourself that before hitting 'Complete Purchase' on your next Amazon order.

Are you trying to represent yourself as a protectionist?

Don't worry. He's a DCM, so we know that he doesn't care that much about stuff he usually advocates for.

 d-usa wrote:
So increasing money for food stamps is okay as long as we don't increase taxes?

Where would you get that idea?

You seem to be fundamentally missing the point. Perhaps deliberately, as is so often the case. You claim that children starving is intolerable. You, personally, could do much more about it than you do. Yet you do not. Clearly it's not as intolerable to you as you claim it is.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-it-moral-to-steal-food-for-the-benefit-of-a-starving-person-if-that-is-the-only-means-by-which-the-food-may-be-obtained

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So increasing money for food stamps is okay as long as we don't increase taxes?

Where would you get that idea?

You seem to be fundamentally missing the point. Perhaps deliberately, as is so often the case. You claim that children starving is intolerable. You, personally, could do much more about it than you do. Yet you do not. Clearly it's not as intolerable to you as you claim it is.

Well, you care as much about our military and veterans as I do about hungry people. Which according to you isn't all that much it appears.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, you care as much about our military and veterans as I do about hungry people. Which according to you isn't all that much it appears.

Oh, no. By your own admission, it's intolerable that children starve.

I'd never say it's intolerable that we didn't increase military spending. You care far, far more about hungry people (or so you say, at least) than I've ever said I cared about the military.

Of course, I make sure to calibrate my statements to reflect my actual viewpoint, rather than some idealized version of my thoughts that I simply wished was true. Try it sometime. It's liberating.

Seaward, your argument has as much nuance as that of a teenager.
You take an edge case and extrapolate far too much, you make each judgement an absolute, and you equivocate. Then you use cop out arguments like "kids are going to starve anyway" when in this situation there are solutions available which still punish the people who took the food and DON'T harm their kids.
In the situation of a murderer or an armed robber, there are few options other than incarceration. In that case, the cost (suffering of the child) is weighed against the benefit (getting a dangerous person off the street. Your argument is to make all such deliberations absolutist, and I believe you do so disingenuously because you disagree with foodstamps and all other "welfare" payments, and have one "good" argument against them with "bleeding hearts" (btw, this is the first time I've seen "I don't want innocent kids to starve" equated to "bleeding heart". Where I come from that's called empathy. )

I await your snappy one liner response eagerly.

 Da Boss wrote:
Seaward, your argument has as much nuance as that of a teenager.
You take an edge case and extrapolate far too much, you make each judgement an absolute, and you equivocate. Then you use cop out arguments like "kids are going to starve anyway" when in this situation there are solutions available which still punish the people who took the food and DON'T harm their kids.
In the situation of a murderer or an armed robber, there are few options other than incarceration. In that case, the cost (suffering of the child) is weighed against the benefit (getting a dangerous person off the street. Your argument is to make all such deliberations absolutist, and I believe you do so disingenuously because you disagree with foodstamps and all other "welfare" payments, and have one "good" argument against them with "bleeding hearts" (btw, this is the first time I've seen "I don't want innocent kids to starve" equated to "bleeding heart". Where I come from that's called empathy. )

I await your snappy one liner response eagerly.

There are lots of good arguments against food stamps. This is hardly the only one.

If my argument is absolutist, it's only in response to absolutist statements like, "It's intolerable that children starve!" Perhaps you ought to reconsider making such absolutist claims, which you clearly cannot back up, if you don't want absolutist arguments in return?

There's simply no argument to the fact that, if it were truly intolerable, you'd do a hell of a lot more about it. But that's not the case. It's tolerable. You tolerate it just fine. It might make you uncomfortable, even sad, but it's nothing that some luxury items won't cheer you up over.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, you care as much about our military and veterans as I do about hungry people. Which according to you isn't all that much it appears.

Oh, no. By your own admission, it's intolerable that children starve.

I'd never say it's intolerable that we didn't increase military spending. You care far, far more about hungry people (or so you say, at least) than I've ever said I cared about the military.

Of course, I make sure to calibrate my statements to reflect my actual viewpoint, rather than some idealized version of my thoughts that I simply wished was true. Try it sometime. It's liberating.

Except we know that by your own standards you don't find anything intolerable, at all. You call for increased military spending, but are okay with substandard care for injured soldiers and families suffering because of deployments and mental illness sustained by it. You might call for increased spending for veterans, but you don't find veteran suicide intolerable.

If we believe what you type, then we know that you are okay with all of that. We can tell because you spend $25 supporting a forum for plastic soldiers instead of donating that money. You set that standard, so at least own it.

Lots of tu quoque here. Lets try making real arguments instead of saying "Well you do this"

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, you care as much about our military and veterans as I do about hungry people. Which according to you isn't all that much it appears.

Oh, no. By your own admission, it's intolerable that children starve.

I'd never say it's intolerable that we didn't increase military spending. You care far, far more about hungry people (or so you say, at least) than I've ever said I cared about the military.

Of course, I make sure to calibrate my statements to reflect my actual viewpoint, rather than some idealized version of my thoughts that I simply wished was true. Try it sometime. It's liberating.

Kids get Free lunch through school programs. I would rather kids get fed through programs supervised by social workers opposed to abused food stamps. We already have programs which send dinner and weekend food home with the kids from school and provide food during the summer.

Food stamp programs do nothing to guarantee to feed starving children raised in low-income households.

Yes they do. They make sure that the parents are able to feed their children, their babies, get gas, and other such things.
And I have had those free school lunches they suck and make you vomit.
Listen, Abusers are usually rare. there are not people who keep popping out kids for more money. Most people on foodstamps are decent people.
Also, anyone else think Walmart my possibly be to blame in this aswell, as enablers? They knew the system was down, but they kept ringing it up.

 d-usa wrote:
Except we know that by your own standards you don't find anything intolerable, at all. You call for increased military spending, but are okay with substandard care for injured soldiers and families suffering because of deployments and mental illness sustained by it. You might call for increased spending for veterans, but you don't find veteran suicide intolerable.

If we believe what you type, then we know that you are okay with all of that. We can tell because you spend $25 supporting a forum for plastic soldiers instead of donating that money. You set that standard, so at least own it.

So on your scale, there's nothing between "okay" and "intolerable," eh? Interesting. That actually explains a lot about you.

I'm glad you're finally seeing the point, though. I don't like substandard care for veterans. I don't like veteran suicide. Is it something that I'm willing to pour every dollar I make above what I need to live into ending, though? No. I'd happily divert funding from Social Security or federal college loan programs or the TSA or any number of other things into veteran care, or even enlisted pay raises, and I'd even agree to paying more in tax than the ridiculous amount I already do if it were specifically earmarked for such things (which would never happen), but I don't find it to be something I cannot live with. I'm not naive or childish enough to expect a just world. It is not, by definition, intolerable.

Just like child hunger isn't for you. Unlike you, however, I'm honest enough to say what I actually mean, rather than what I wish I meant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, anyone else think Walmart my possibly be to blame in this aswell, as enablers? They knew the system was down, but they kept ringing it up.

I'd have been all for them not accepting food stamp-funded purchases on that given day. The problem they faced with doing that, though, is that the usual suspects would have cried rivers over food stamp recipients not being able to buy food for all of a day, undoubtedly while asserting that no one would have taken advantage of the system outage, thus, boo, Wal-mart's evil.

They were screwed either way.

So, we went from talking about Foodstamps, to pointing fingers and saying "Well you do this, so it makes your point Mute"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, anyone else think Walmart my possibly be to blame in this aswell, as enablers? They knew the system was down, but they kept ringing it up.

I'd have been all for them not accepting food stamp-funded purchases on that given day. The problem they faced with doing that, though, is that the usual suspects would have cried rivers over food stamp recipients not being able to buy food for all of a day, undoubtedly while asserting that no one would have taken advantage of the system outage, thus, boo, Wal-mart's evil.

They were screwed either way.

Over here, safeway, our walmart, and several other stores did not accept foodstamps, citing they could get the money. Want to know how much outrage there was? 0.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yes they do. They make sure that the parents are able to feed their children, their babies, get gas, and other such things.

Hey, remember when stores in some states had to put up signs saying they were no longer accepting food stamps for alcohol and tobacco?

Seaward may be extreme(and a bit outrageous) in most of his points, but he's absolutely right about the programs not ensuring that people are feeding their children. There's little to no regulation in some areas as to what they're to be spent on. Luckily, most places have been working on that, but it's still far from perfect.

I never said it was intolerable? I just said, in this instance, that it is the wrong choice to make. So please don't hide behind what someone else said while engaging with me.

Perhaps you need to work on improving your reading comprehension.

Edit: And it's absolutely right that food stamps don't count for alcohol and tobacco. If that's currently allowed in various states, that loophole should be closed. It's also true that welfare payments don't always help the kids in these families- teaching in a disadvantaged area, you see plenty of that. The solution to that problem is massively expensive though, so you've got to be willing to pay for a lot more government workers supervising the distribution of food, which is really impractical, or accept that in some cases it's not going to do the job you wanted it to, because the world isn't perfect.

A much worse scenario to me is delivering all welfare through charity. This means that unpopular groups or groups which stir fewer emotional responses would get less help.

I work in a school district, I worked for the Department of Human Services.

Free meals in school are great but if that is a child's only source of sustenance, you're setting that child up for failure. Here's a link to a good article in Educational Leadership:
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may13/vol70/num08/Hungry-Kids@-The-Solvable-Crisis.aspx

I've been on both sides of this issue. I grew up in generational poverty; I was eligible for free meals and didn't take advantage of them because of the stigma attached. Some schools offer weekend food bags for kids to take home with them as well.

In my time at DHS, I saw all manner of what many would consider insane behavior; attend a Ruby Payne training or two and the behavior starts to make sense. I'm trying to excuse the the behavior, but to change behavior you first need to understand its root cause(s). My point here is that children should never be penalized for the poor decision making of their parents; they can't choose their parents. They might actually learn something if this is approached in a methodic, non-kneejerk manner and everything is explained throughout the process instead of just levying some penalty and sending a letter (which is probably what will happen).

I like the public service option presented earlier.

@Da Boss:
Federal law prohibits the purchase of non-food items with food stamps (SNAP) benefits. What you often see; however, is that people will sell their benefits and then use the funds from the sell for alcohol and tobacco. If a store sells non-food items with food stamps, they can and often are brought up on federal fraud charges. There was a case here in Oklahoma where a rural convenience store was processing more sales in SNAP benefits than it had in merchandise, eventually red flags went up and the owner went to federal prison I believe.

 Da Boss wrote:
I never said it was intolerable? I just said, in this instance, that it is the wrong choice to make. So please don't hide behind what someone else said while engaging with me.

That's true, you did in fact never say it was intolerable. My apologies.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Except we know that by your own standards you don't find anything intolerable, at all. You call for increased military spending, but are okay with substandard care for injured soldiers and families suffering because of deployments and mental illness sustained by it. You might call for increased spending for veterans, but you don't find veteran suicide intolerable.

If we believe what you type, then we know that you are okay with all of that. We can tell because you spend $25 supporting a forum for plastic soldiers instead of donating that money. You set that standard, so at least own it.

So on your scale, there's nothing between "okay" and "intolerable," eh? Interesting. That actually explains a lot about you.

I'm glad you're finally seeing the point, though. I don't like substandard care for veterans. I don't like veteran suicide. Is it something that I'm willing to pour every dollar I make above what I need to live into ending, though? No. I'd happily divert funding from Social Security or federal college loan programs or the TSA or any number of other things into veteran care, or even enlisted pay raises, and I'd even agree to paying more in tax than the ridiculous amount I already do if it were specifically earmarked for such things (which would never happen), but I don't find it to be something I cannot live with. I'm not naive or childish enough to expect a just world.

But you don't support any of that enough for you not to be a DCM on DakkaDakka. So I'm glad you support paying more in taxes, but according to your own arguments in this thread there is no reason why our taxes should go up as long as you pay money to this very site.

It is not, by definition, intolerable.

And I never said childhood hunger is intolerable. I said that taking food form children because of something their parents did is intolerable.

Just like child hunger isn't for you. Unlike you, however, I'm honest enough to say what I actually mean, rather than what I wish I meant.

You have never been honest enough to argue what other people said, rather than what you wish we said.

Like your argument that I find childhood hunger intolerable, when I said that I find it intolerable to take food from children because of what their parents did.

Or like your argument that I support not punishing parents for anything if it would mean that it would somehow affect the children.

When you are honest enough to debate what people actually said, instead of changing their arguments and debating that, then you can pad your own shoulder.

 d-usa wrote:
But you don't support any of that enough for you not to be a DCM on DakkaDakka. So I'm glad you support paying more in taxes, but according to your own arguments in this thread there is no reason why our taxes should go up as long as you pay money to this very site.

No. There's no reason, period, that our taxes should go up. Not when we have so very many, many. many bad programs we could cut.

And I never said childhood hunger is intolerable.

So children starving is something you can live with? Good. Welcome to the real world. Curious that you defended that position for so long if you didn't actually believe it, but I suppose I should just learn to stop expecting sense and consistency from you.

You have never been honest enough to argue what other people said, rather than what you wish we said.

This is going to get real amusing in a second.

Like your argument that I find childhood hunger intolerable, when I said that I find it intolerable to take food from children because of what their parents did.

Or like your argument that I support not punishing parents for anything if it would mean that it would somehow affect the children.

Those two statements are completely contradictory, in this case.

When you are honest enough to debate what people actually said, instead of changing their arguments and debating that, then you can pad your own shoulder.

Do you ever consider following your own rules? I ask purely out of curiosity, because when it comes to dodging and distorting, I can only think of a few guys who give you a run for your money.

Actually, feth it. You've never provided anything useful. Ignore it is.

I applied your own argument to yourself. You change what people said and debate against that.

And those two statements are not contradictory at all. Not wanting to take food from children because of something their parents did does not mean that I am against any form of punishment that might affec the children in some form.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I got Seward to ignore me? Tired if me not falling for your attempts to twist arguments into something I didn't say and applying your own standards against you?

What purpose will I have now...

Cheers for the apology.

This is your essential point right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcLAJbvwNQU

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone foots the bill who pays taxes or shops at Walmart.

You will find that recovering money from people who have none is a pointless endeavour.

I don't see anything at all about this potentiality that is an attempt to recover money. It's an attempt to punish people who committed a crime.

Why are you worried about who will foot the bill, then?

Everyone who is a tax payer helps pay for the criminal justice system. The potential difficulty of this case is that petty crime is usually punished with a fine, so these people may have to be given community service.

Let them starve to death...Really, I do mean that..

When I was in the military during the Carter Administration military pay was so low that an E6 with two kids qualified for public assistance.

We took care of our own... Money came out of my pocket along with others to keep the kids fed.

We did not go on the public dole and the kids got 3 meals a day.

When I married and two years later we had our first child we both worked our butts off and kept that kid and the next one fed even when there were times the wife and I lived off of leftovers from field rations I had paid for and not consumed in the field.

There is a national problem of girls having babies and the dad moves on and the family does not take in the girl or her kids because the government will.

It's time to stop that cold.

We as taxpayers can no longer afford it and it rewards terrible behavior patterns.

We as Americans teach a sizable part of our population that it's OK to be irresponsible, it's OK to never have a job as long as you are pumping out babies we will pay you for it and it's OK to impregnate a girl and then walk away because the government will take of your child for you..

Go look on Craigs list in any major cites and you will find food stamps on sale for cash....

Where do you think they come from? Do you think all of that food that was taken in those stores was eaten and not sold?

Look at the videos and see who is filling those carts and then discards then the second the system comes back on line...
What do you think is going to happen if the lights, and free food, is interrupted for a few weeks in those areas?

The overall problem needs to be solved and that will only happen when the free food and money stops and those who get them realize that just like the rest of America and the world if you do not work and your family will not support you then you starve...

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
stuff...

I realize you're being hyperbolic here because it's the internet and stuff. One thing that you and others may fail to realize is that the USDA initiated the food stamp program for two reasons, as a way to provide supplemental assistance to the working poor (you know, people without an organization behind them, backing them up) and the other reason was as a backdoor subsidy for the food industry, mostly farmers. More people buying food means more money flowing into the pockets of farmers...they just didn't foresee the advent of corporate farms and the death of the small-time farmer when the program first started. The program does a lot of good for a lot of people; focusing on the negatives here is like saying "kill everyone that carries a gun" because some wackjob walks into some place and kills a few people. Over generalizing something does not an argument make.

I would really like to see if you have the strength of your convictions when someone you know dies because of lack of care. Kudos to you and your family. I, myself, grew up hungry and had a full-time job all through high school so we could eat and helped pay the bills; now stop and ask yourself, why is that necessary? Why do companies make record profits and pay employees relatively so little here in the US? I know, it's the American dream; screw everybody else as long as I get mine. The thing is, the founding fathers of our country didn't live that way. Americans have a much stronger tradition of helping each other than leaving each other dangling in the breeze. There was a time when communities would come together and raise barns (heck some still do but nowadays we just chuckle at those backwards Mennonites) or watch after each other's kids. What happened to the concept of American community spirit and civic pride? Dead I guess after reading your rant about letting your neighbors die in the streets.

We've got two problems as I see it. Apathy (or outright hate in your case) an enablement. The government enables by just throwing public dollars into established programs for the poor without looking at underlying causes (even though there are countless studies) and actually fixing it. Why? Because, 1, it's easier to just shut them up by throwing the bare minimum at them for survival and 2 it keeps the bankroll rolling in from corporate sponsors who like their record profits; I mean, if WalMart had to pay someone a living wage without raising prices drastically, they'd have to cut their profits. D.C. tried to pass a living wage bill that would raise area workers minimum wages to 12.50/hour and Wal Mart threatened to close stores. Anybody who's been to D.C. knows how expensive it is there, 12.50 is nothing and they balked over that. Now, the apathy. Neighbors and family members don't need to care because "the government will just take care of it." these are usually the same people that wish the government would just stay out of their lives but are also the first ones in line with their hands out when they think it will get them some benefit. Here' in Oklahoma there's an alarming rise in the number of grandparents taking care of grandkids. To me that's family taking care of family but it also shows a lack in education on the parents fault. Parent apathy in educating their children in the consequences for their fething decisions; "It's the school's job to teach my kids." No, it's the school's job to educate your children, not to teach them morality and proper life-skills decision making, that's the job of a parent and something that most American parents fail at miserably; just sit in a crowded area and watch people interact, how often do you see a parent correct a child in a way that actually educates the child? Yeah.

Well, I kind of got into the realm of my pet peeves instead of addressing yours so I better quit typing now.
Cheers.

Geez guys... this thread just went sideways... o.O

 Ouze wrote:
You know, I've been thinking it over, and now I think maybe we should just let this one go.

Due to a software bug, some hungry people in the richest country in the world got some food to which they were not entitled from the richest company in said richest country. I reject the idea that we have to choose between "lets make them hungrier" or "lets screw up their lives forever by giving them criminal convictions". The software bug was addressed and the issue is fixed. I think we should show some prosecutorial discretion and just, you know, move on.

I tend to agree... or, at least dock them $10/month or so util their excess is paid off.

 agnosto wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
stuff...

I realize you're being hyperbolic here because it's the internet and stuff. One thing that you and others may fail to realize is that the USDA initiated the food stamp program for two reasons, as a way to provide supplemental assistance to the working poor (you know, people without an organization behind them, backing them up) and the other reason was as a backdoor subsidy for the food industry, mostly farmers. More people buying food means more money flowing into the pockets of farmers...they just didn't foresee the advent of corporate farms and the death of the small-time farmer when the program first started. The program does a lot of good for a lot of people; focusing on the negatives here is like saying "kill everyone that carries a gun" because some wackjob walks into some place and kills a few people. Over generalizing something does not an argument make.

Key here being SUPPLEMENTAL.

I would really like to see if you have the strength of your convictions when someone you know dies because of lack of care. Kudos to you and your family. I, myself, grew up hungry and had a full-time job all through high school so we could eat and helped pay the bills; now stop and ask yourself, why is that necessary? Why do companies make record profits and pay employees relatively so little here in the US? I know, it's the American dream; screw everybody else as long as I get mine. The thing is, the founding fathers of our country didn't live that way. Americans have a much stronger tradition of helping each other than leaving each other dangling in the breeze. There was a time when communities would come together and raise barns (heck some still do but nowadays we just chuckle at those backwards Mennonites) or watch after each other's kids. What happened to the concept of American community spirit and civic pride? Dead I guess after reading your rant about letting your neighbors die in the streets.

I'd wager, based on his post that I suspect you didn't actually read completely, that he wouldn't let that happen. Nor would I. Hence the whole "help out family" thing you DO mention in your post.

We've got two problems as I see it. Apathy (or outright hate in your case) an enablement. The government enables by just throwing public dollars into established programs for the poor without looking at underlying causes (even though there are countless studies) and actually fixing it. Why? Because, 1, it's easier to just shut them up by throwing the bare minimum at them for survival and 2 it keeps the bankroll rolling in from corporate sponsors who like their record profits; I mean, if WalMart had to pay someone a living wage without raising prices drastically, they'd have to cut their profits. D.C. tried to pass a living wage bill that would raise area workers minimum wages to 12.50/hour and Wal Mart threatened to close stores. Anybody who's been to D.C. knows how expensive it is there, 12.50 is nothing and they balked over that. Now, the apathy. Neighbors and family members don't need to care because "the government will just take care of it." these are usually the same people that wish the government would just stay out of their lives but are also the first ones in line with their hands out when they think it will get them some benefit. Here' in Oklahoma there's an alarming rise in the number of grandparents taking care of grandkids. To me that's family taking care of family but it also shows a lack in education on the parents fault. Parent apathy in educating their children in the consequences for their fething decisions; "It's the school's job to teach my kids." No, it's the school's job to educate your children, not to teach them morality and proper life-skills decision making, that's the job of a parent and something that most American parents fail at miserably; just sit in a crowded area and watch people interact, how often do you see a parent correct a child in a way that actually educates the child? Yeah.

Well, I kind of got into the realm of my pet peeves instead of addressing yours so I better quit typing now.
Cheers.

So so you grandparents RASING kids or grandparents providing child care for kids? Because those are two wildly different things, neither of which inherently implies lack of education on the parents part. Additionally, I think saying "most fail at miserably" is absurdly hyperbolic.

I realize you're being hyperbolic here because it's the internet and stuff.

No, I'm not...

Most countries you do not work, you do not eat... You make choices to only have as many kids as you can feed. You do not buy bling or new cars or crack or dope. You work hard and pass those values to your kids.

The government supplementing those jobs with food stamps and welfare is why Americans put up with those low paying jobs...

Eliminate the supplements and watch what happens...People who can not feed their kids get pissed and take action to either get a job that pays enough or get together with others to effect real change, which neither party wants...

Welfare in America is designed to keep people down. Look what happened before welfare when enough people got hungry...They got pissed enough to effect better paying jobs at the nation level and more of the wealth went to more of the country.

That will not happen now as long as there is welfare and food stamps and that is by design. Having the government take wealth from the rich to give as it pleases to the poor ends one way. Look at Venezuela where they just nationalized their Best Buys...

I have seen it in country after country, and I have seen it, not read about it.

A person does not respect what is given to them as charity...it demeans them and breaks down the family.

Welfare steals respect.

The country cannot survive the way it is going with over half the country not working and the rest feeding those who will not work via taxes which the government gives out as it pleases.

What you saw when the system went down and that chain of stores opened their doors is the beginning, just like those flash mobs that are getting bigger and bigger.

I do not hate the poor, my family grew up very poor for over 100 years and it was individual family members who chose the military as a way out over several generations who changed that part of the family.

I have cousins and nephews and nieces still collecting welfare and food stamps and as long as it's free they will keep taking it and never accomplish anything in their lives...

I know what I am talking about and the best thing that could ever happen to them is for the supply to be cut off...

your experiance does NOT equal reality. One thing my social research class taught me.
Just because all you see is people collecting welfare and not doing things is wrong.
First, a majority of welfare recipiants are only on welfare for 4-5 years.
Second, many do work and are not lazy.
You are correct that it does steal respect, because people look at them with contempt

so,

step one, the systems does its best to support you, by giving you "free money" for food in the form of and EBT


step two, people use every penny of free money available, because its FREE MONEY.....

step three, make sure your FREE MONEY PROGRAM works, cause if it bugs, guess what will happen?


did these people do the "right" thing? its one of those stealing bread to feed your family questions I guess, although, I did see carts filled with lots of junk food crap.

I wouldnt say they did the "right" thing,
people who did go over and take advantage of it, yes absolutely, take away benefits until the $ amount evens out with with they have already fraudulently taken (so if they stole 400 bucks, and get 40$ a month, take it away for 10 months), making it no net loss for them, since they already got that amount of food off the program.

but its not a "lets ruin their lives over this" kind of thing... temp benefits garnishing or removal would make it no harm no foul.

but the real mistake is that the system was so vunerable that i COULD have no limit to the free money in the first place... that should be pretty much your #1 priority when giving away free money, put a limit on it, that cannot be gotten around.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

I realize you're being hyperbolic here because it's the internet and stuff.

No, I'm not...

Most countries you do not work, you do not eat... You make choices to only have as many kids as you can feed. You do not buy bling or new cars or crack or dope. You work hard and pass those values to your kids.

No, in many of those countries, with not support network at all, you don't have as many kids as you can feed, you have more and hope some will survive the famine/civil war/diseases/criminal warlords/minefields.

The allusion you place, that America should be more like those nations with no welfare support network, is fine and dandy if you want America to fall into the sort of state those nations are in.

It's call the 3rd world.

Welfare in America is designed to keep people down. Look what happened before welfare when enough people got hungry...They got pissed enough to effect better paying jobs at the nation level and more of the wealth went to more of the country.

You're entirely wrong, the welfare state was established in the previous century to support the hungry and the downtrodden and before it existed, you starved to death, worked in crime, emigrated or lived subsidence/serfdom/workhouse existences.

Or are you one of those quaint people that watches John Wayne films and thinks that's how the Old West was?