What Happened When a State Made Food Stamps Harder to Get

[Zan15]

Interesting how after posting a few decades old talking points the same few people again ghost these kinds of threads never admitting "oh shit based on the facts I was kind of wrong about food stamps"

[Bodakane]

Interesting how after posting a few decades old talking points the same few people again ghost these kinds of threads never admitting "oh shit based on the facts I was kind of wrong about food stamps"

Is it interesting? I mean have they EVER admitted they've been wrong about anything?

[Beefhammer]

Is it interesting? I mean have they EVER admitted they've been wrong about anything?

In a round about way whenever they post. It's pretty obvious they post lies and untruths. Kind of like that Trump meme that show pics of him with captions of "lying", "thinking about lying" and so on. So they unknowingly admit it with every word they speak.

- - - Updated - - -

You know the funny thing is that for your "accomplishments" there are several anecdotes of people that HAVE worked hard and their kids still live the same way they themselves did. Dont you realise and see with your own eyes that back in the day people could raise a full family with ONE job and still save up money for a rainy day. And that is so rare these days unless you have a really high education or a really riskful job.

Yup my dad expanded his family, bought a new home in the suburbs, and 2 new cars in 1977 on a job that was paying slightly above min wage. After 38 years he was able to retire, owned two homes, two cars, 2 motorcycles, paid for 8 years of college for two kids, and can take vacations wherever he wants all on 1 job. Helps to have a good union and a job that respected its workers.

- - - Updated - - -

Massive deregulation in the 80s caused the "need" for two income households.

Well into the 60s and 70s it was easy to raise a family on a single income household, long after women entered the workforce.

Another reason why Reagan was the worst President of the 20th century.

Hell, he was one of the worst ever.

[jeezusisacasual]

Reagan and others like him have sought to undo what FDR had put in place. In fact it was Reagan who allowed stock buy back in 1981 that FDR made illegal during the great depression. The reason why food stamps have such a high demand is because capitalism is broken and needs to be replaced with a capitalism++. For now we need to stabilize capitalism by restricting it, which is what FDR did for the 1929 crash. Which means we need a lot of regulations. Once capitalism is stabilized then we need a new economic system.

The Reagan revolution moved the political compass from economic issues to more emotional based one in the national talking point or view. This is a winning strategy if you can control the narrative but with the advent of the internet and it literally being as free and open as it is makes keeping the clamps down on ideas against the central narrative almost impossible to stop. Yellow Vest protests have grown because of the internet, monetary shaming of hollywood happened because they could not keep a lid on the narrative. This is good in many aspects but also very dangerous in others unless you are against the national security state and a singular global US pushed and forced world order.

[bagelmanman]

nytimes.com

[Kithelle]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/u...-virginia.html



TLDR: Welfare/foodstamp work requirements still don't work, and don't have any meaningful impact on employment. Their usual effect is kicking people out of those programs and pushing them to food pantries and other charities.

As with the Kansas "supply side economics" experiment, it's another major failure for what is a pretty major Republican policy talking point.

This is the US government, they don't give a fuck that it doesn't work...that people can't get jobs, all they care about is saving money so they can continue with wasteful spending and drive us deeper into debt.

[Elegiac]

Well, you're right, let's not force companies to hire anyone it's bad for the economy and the employer. We'll leave charity for charity.

If charity worked then poverty wouldn't exist.

[Endus]

Never give people free stuff, unless they're disabled or something. You can always give them money for a service. We have an ailing infrastructure, put them to work. There is that insane idea of "forgiving" student loan as well ... why? Isn't' it enough they were given an extremely cheap and long term loan in the first place? Why give free stuff? Let them work for it and deduct the salary ... put them on a government project. Finance more government projects and force contractors to hire a certain number of low-income families or students in debt. If they're not willing to work for the money, then screw them.

What you're talking about is the literal definition of slavery.

There's a reason it isn't tolerated anywhere in the developed world.

[Vash The Stampede]

Counter argument is that saving millions of jobs prevented a full on depression. Add to that the Obama was proposing a massive jobs stimulus bill(ARRA which eventually passed), which practically started the Tea Party movement(while also having the unfortunate disadvantage of being a black President).

That's the fallacy many people would like to believe that we're not in a full on depression. The 2008 financial crisis has not stopped, but many people would like you to believe it has. The usually symptoms of a depression like job losses and crashed stock market aren't present, but higher debt to income is worse than 2008. Inflation has certainly risen as home ownership is impossible and rent has nearly doubled for some people. Fact is that almost double as many people jumped onto food stamps since 2008, and the only reason it has dropped a little is because there's resistance to letting people get on the program and stay on it.

The thing to remember is that the 2008 crisis is still going but it has manifested into other areas besides job losses and crashing stock market. It has mutated and moved around.

Obama was proposing the standard Keynes economic theory. When the private sector is failing, the government spends the money to get things back to normal. Problem was the GOP frothing their base about socialism and the 2010 mid-terms happened. After that, all Obama could do was regulate more. Basically we had 2 years of standard American government economic theory, interrupted by the very base that supports Trump. We needed at least 2 more years to get roaring back, and never got it.

Basically Obama and Trump are Neoliberals which is socialism for the wealthy and capitalism for the rest of us. The private sector failing is part of capitalism and not allowing them to fail means society suffers to pay for their mistakes. Getting things back to normal is stupid because normal didn't work, because if it did then people wouldn't be working at Walmart and getting food stamps. The auto industry is failing just like in 2008, as well as the housing market. I constantly hear bad things about Deutsche Bank. The repo market failed and the Federal reserve is printing $4 Trillion dollars for them, so far.

Never give people free stuff, unless they're disabled or something. You can always give them money for a service. We have an ailing infrastructure, put them to work.

Can we start with the corporations and wealthy? We give billions in subsidies and the Federal Reserve printing out $4 Trillion to banks with no interest. The farmers getting subsidies are calling it "Trump money". Stop giving the private industry free stuff and then we can talk about the people getting "free stuff". It isn't free because we paid for it in taxes.

There is that insane idea of "forgiving" student loan as well ... why? Isn't' it enough they were given an extremely cheap and long term loan in the first place? Why give free stuff? Let them work for it and deduct the salary ... put them on a government project. Finance more government projects and force contractors to hire a certain number of low-income families or students in debt. If they're not willing to work for the money, then screw them.

The idiocy from this is astonishing. We need educated people because they generate more wealth and better jobs. A government project that employs people does what exactly? Employment itself shouldn't be the end goal here, but better quality jobs. Would you rather sit at a desk all day or work at a construction site building an office that nobody can use because nobody can afford the education?

This is also why we made high school education mandatory because it raised the standard of living for everyone. I'd rather we have educated people who can design machinery that can 3D print offices instead of lay the bricks by hand, because it makes i9erek feel better see manual labor being performed. Let me remind you that this is the future of labor, in that it will be mostly automated. Education is the future and having it free and accessible would eliminate the chicken or egg issue of education financing.

[Vash The Stampede]

I'm pretty sure they won't put them into manual labor ... the government is the biggest funder for scientific research. Not sure why you thought that all projects would be manual labor ...

So what would you do with a bunch of uneducated people? Take all the Walmart and McDonalds employees and together they can... stock shelves and ask if you want fries with that. What sort of government projects could you use to employ these people?

[Endus]

Which part is slavery, locking someone up and giving them no pay and just barely enough food to survive or is it the "putting them to work" part? Because we are already doing "part 1" ... I don't see how part 2, putting them to work, would suddenly make this slavery.

https://borgenproject.org/types-of-slavery/

"Forced labor" is right there at #3. "Bonded labor or debt bondage" is on there at #5.

It makes it slavery because you start enslaving them. Again; what you're describing is the literal definition of slavery; it's like saying "I'm not murdering people, I'm just killing them because they bother me". Feigning ignorance over basic definitions is asinine. Cut it out.

If you're being compelled to work against your will, whether directly or to repay a debt, that's "slavery". No matter how pro-slavery you might be. You don't get to change the meanings of words just because it reveals how thoroughly misanthrophic your viewpoint is.

[Zan15]

They can help build infrastructure ... rail networks, bridges, dams, we have a lot of government projects that can use uneducated people. There is always something to do don't worry.

the additional cost of unskilled labor to a project and the management of that labor on a day to day basis could very well outstrip the cost of just giving them food stamps....

Whom is going to hire the thousands upon thousands of people needed to manage these people on a day to day basis, not to mention track their time, their conforming to the schedule and requirements, etc etc.

sure it sounds great, free-ish labor doing things like cleaning up the streets, but the reality of it even free work ends up costing money.

[Endus]

Lol, don't worry we can make sure it's legal.

The death camp at Auschwitz was "legal".

I don't consider that a useful bar for measuring anything.

They can quit at any time, it will be completely optional.

You literally claimed otherwise.

If it's "optional", you're just talking about normal jobs, and aren't actually making a point.

Besides, we already do it when we order forced hours of community service ... so we're not doing anything new. Chill.

This is not the case.

Those hours of service are a legal punishment, and you're not obliged to do them. If you don't, the courts will settle on something like "prison time", which most people won't prefer to community service. But you also had to do something illegal to be in that circumstance, and "took out a student loan" or "can't find a decent-paying job" aren't crimes.

- - - Updated - - -

Haha that's the most absurd thing I heard. Yeah, I'm pretty sure all project managers prefer paid labor over free labor! It saves money because the alternative to unpaid labor is paid labor.

If it's "unpaid", then you're back to straight-up arguing for enslavement. Forcing people to work, and now, clearly stating you're going to give them no pay in return for that forced labor, to boot (and to be clear; even if you were paying them, still slavery).

So many projects that are economically infeasible will become feasible. The economy and businesses will boom. No one will be forced to hire them but I'm pretty sure all construction companies will start offering lower bids to projects and absolutely hire free labor first before starting to fill up on paid labor. Maybe we won't need to import hundreds of thousands of immigrants to simply build our country. Let's pay people to go to college, then let's' pay them to NOT work after they graduate then let's pay immigrants to come and work here while our citizens are being paid to stay at home because God forbid they actually work for a paycheck ... this country is run by monkeys.

Literally the arguments made by Confederate slaveholders.

They were misanthropic idiots and completely wrong about just about everything.

[Zan15]

Haha that's the most absurd thing I heard. Yeah, I'm pretty sure all project managers prefer paid labor over free labor! It saves money because the alternative to unpaid labor is paid labor. So many projects that are economically infeasible will become feasible. The economy and businesses will boom. No one will be forced to hire them but I'm pretty sure all construction companies will start offering lower bids to projects and absolutely hire free labor first before starting to fill up on paid labor. Maybe we won't need to import hundreds of thousands of immigrants to simply build our country. Let's pay people to go to college, then let's' pay them to NOT work after they graduate then let's pay immigrants to come and work here while our citizens are being paid to stay at home because God forbid they actually work for a paycheck ... this country is run by monkeys.

And you know what? This probably isn't the best solution, it's just simple and stupid but it's way better than "give free money to people". It's mainly to point out how ultimately stupid and absurd the idea of "free money" is ... it's insane, just economically insane. A guy who is capable of working, and needs the money and you just give him money without putting him to work? That's just stupid, plain stupid. You can 50 arguments on how "oh it's not that simple, you see, it will cost more money to hire him!". What a load of rubbish.

Rubbish you say?
Ever manage a worksite? Ever even manage paid temps?
Oh the nightmare...the hidden cost...the not hidden cost....


So what is this free labor going to do all day?
Clear a worksite? Demo?
So what are they going to do the other 32 hours in the week, lol?

Most project managers would not touch "free" labor even if you then on top of the "free" part gave them 50 bucks a head. Only ones doing it now are people that want to avoid taxes, insurance, regulations and do shit work.


Free labor you say? Lets just look at one example....

Well whom is going to pay for the workman's comp?
Who is going to pay the cost of insuring these "free" workers?
Whom is going to pay the cost of injuries and healthcare if something happens. Lawsuits, lawyers, etc

You can almost always expect that the cost will exceed the cost of "experienced" workers by multiples.

Just these three things by themselves will exceed the cost of the max 192 dollars a month food stamp allowance.


How do you plan on scheduling millions of people on a weekly/monthly basis to do all this "free work"? In a few hundred thousand locations.
How do you plan on getting these millions of to work? You know most of them don't have transportation right? You know many of them are in rural communities and in order to get them to work on "free" work you would have to coordinate huge transportation plans to get them to where the work is. Then because of travel time you would probably have to pay for housing too.


The logistics would be a nightmare of epic proportions exceeding the cost of giving them food stamps.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, don't worry we can make sure it's legal. They can quit at any time, it will be completely optional. Besides, we already do it when we order forced hours of community service ... so we're not doing anything new. Chill.

They can quit anytime they want.....that is if they like not eating!!!

Eating is completely optional!!


If they don't do forced community service they violate their terms of sentencing (I am assuming you are talking about forced criminal sentence labor).
At that point they are then sent to prison and given food, housing, medical, etc etc.


What you are talking about is taking that all away because well "its just optional ya know".....

The labor you are talking about does not hold their basic human rights hostage.

[Endus]

You know either read the argument from the beginning or just don't participate in it. It's "unpaid" from the employer's perspective. It's paid by the government. The whole thing is about getting work as a return for payment. I do not support giving people free money nor do I support enslaving them. The whole thing is about "government giving people money, might as well ask them to do a job for the payment they take". No one is doing a job for free.

So your proposal against handouts is far greater handouts, alongside forced labor?

Now you don't even have fiscal responsibility on your side.

[Endus]

You trolling or what? First, there is no forced labor

You've moved goalposts so much, it's hard to even tell what your point is.

This is a thread that's about food stamps and other social support programs. You made this post; https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post52068601

And referred to forcing such people to work, and also railed against students who'd taken out student loans, in the same vein.

You've tried to shuffle the goalposts around to prisoners a couple times, but I'm not playing that game. I'm sticking to the topic. Particularly as prisoners already have employment programs, so you're not actually proposing any changes, if you're gonna claim to be talking about prisoners and only prisoners.

Based on that first post, you were absolutely arguing for forced labor. If you realized that was wrong, and just never admitted to that in the thread, feel free to do so now.

and second, there is no "greater handout", it's not even a handout, it's "hiring" since the guy is working for the paycheck.

We don't have infinite work to be done. Prisoners are already given job opportunities. We can't just magic up a lot more such opportunities, not unless we're doing make-work stuff, which is a handout with extra steps.

Besides, you (the government) get to decide the budget so why did you assume that it's gonna be worse fiscally? It's gonna cost whatever you decide it will cost.

A> You're arguing for spending way more money. That's what makes it "worse".
B> You're now arguing for abusively low wages, and if you put them too low, prisoners just . . . won't work for that. And then we're back to the forced labor you just insisted you weren't talking about.

[Endus]

Both suggestions are quite silly since it has to be compared with the original idea which was "government gives money, a person just takes it and doesn't do service in return", we changed it into "government give money, a person gives service in return". In both situations, there is limited number of people and a limited amount of money and for me sounds like an improvement.

The problem, again, is that compelling that service for things like "not starving to death, homeless in a ditch", that's the definition of slavery.

If you're holding back support and compelling labor to access it, that's slavery.

Anyways, it's clear here that you're not interested in solutions but rather just trying to trash me.

I haven't trashed you. I've trashed your posts, and your arguments.

You're not interesting enough to have a discussion with. I sometimes wonder, if there is any point in suggesting stuff at all ... I have yet to find a single person to say "oh that's actually a good idea". Not a single human being, I mean some people were convinced the earth is flat but I have yet to convince someone that maybe if you're giving someone money, maybe it would be a good idea to ask for a service in return. I have obviously failed in that.

Maybe your ideas just really aren't as good as you apparently think they are?

And again; requiring "service" in exhange for social support programs is, explicitly, a form of slavery.

[Zan15]

It's all good and can be managed easily. Not sure what's with people here trying so hard to not read nor understand what I'm talking about. It's actually frustrating you know when you feel like you're chatting with a wall.

.

managed easily...ignoring anything I said about the sheer number and size of managing the people on food stamps....

I give up

[Captain N]

managed easily...ignoring anything I said about the sheer number and size of managing the people on food stamps....

I give up

Because their argument is always about having people suffer more for being in a bad spot. It's never been about fiscal conservatism or fixing the low wage/terrible benefits problem we have in this country with a lot of employers.

[Zan15]

Because their argument is always about having people suffer more for being in a bad spot. It's never been about fiscal conservatism or fixing the low wage/terrible benefits problem we have in this country with a lot of employers.

they also ignore the cost benefit aspect of every fucking change they make.