The Republican Thread

[StrangeSox]

No, you are wrong. SNAP limits a few things that you can't buy, but it doesn't say you can't buy junkfood, candy or soda. I think he was hinting that you should only be able to buy meat, potatoes, veggies, bread, etc with the card. Have an approved list of items that can be bought with it, and that is it.

 

Junkfood, candy and soda are edible foods. If you don't believe they should be covered, lobby your representative for a change in the program's definitions. No need for a giant bureaucracy to make every individual's purchases open to public review and challenge.

 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm

 

Note:

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome. Further detailed information about the challenges of restricting the use of SNAP benefits can be found here:

 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published...estrictions.pdf

Edited March 4, 2013 by StrangeSox

[farmteam]

I'm not sure why you keep arguing as if i'm agreeing with every idea Duke proposed. I've told you what I think, so let's stick with what i'm proposing.

 

I don't know the current fraud rate. It's more than zero, and that's enough for me.

 

I see no downsides. What downside could their be? It's about making an efficient welfare system where leechers aren't tolerated and the people that actually need the benefits get it.

I don't mind extra auditing and enforcement techniques to make sure people are actually buying what they're eligible to buy, but I do have a problem with the "public comment" stuff. Just seems like it would be inviting lies and trumped up stories from people who don't like you.

[Balta1701]

Of course, I'm sure the reason why designating those foods as "non-nutritious" would be burdensome is that any effort to do so would put you up against agricultural lobbyists.

 

You're going to lose that fight.

[Jenksismyhero]

So, SOME fraud is OK with you, because you can't stop all fraud, and requiring all these welfare recipients to jump thru all sorts of legal hoops to justify their need for aid is just wrong. Yet, you have no problem with trying to eliminate guns, even though you can't stop all gun crime, and have no problems making legal gun owners jump thru all sorts of legal hoops to justify their need for a gun. OK, got it.

 

Exactly.

[DukeNukeEm]

I was pretty drunk when I came up with the public shaming idea. That wouldn't work since nobody would hire anyone who's clearly on welfare, didn't think it through at all. My b.

Edited March 4, 2013 by DukeNukeEm

[StrangeSox]

The concept of the "working poor" continues to allude many

[StrangeSox]

Exactly.

 

Exactly what? Gun control looks to limit gun violence. While cost and burdens need to be examined, they are not the same thing that the end goal is trying to achieve. With efforts to control fraud and waste, however, it's exactly the same thing. Does it make sense to spend $10 to eliminate $1 of fraud?

 

I think you're falling victim to seeing the desire for gun controls as a desire for "punishment" for something or somebody I don't like. If you instead look at both on the axis of "minimizing human suffering," even if you don't agree with the values I'd place or the end goals I'd like to reach, you'd see why the comparison doesn't really make much sense.

[Jenksismyhero]

You'll never have zero fraud, zero loss, zero overhead. At some point, you hit diminishing returns in a quest to cut the costs. For example, look at the mandatory drug-testing: because it's based on prejudicial assumptions that those on assistance use illegal substances at substantially higher rates than those not on assistance, it ends up costing the state more money than they save from kicking the handful of people that test positive off of the rolls. The sorts of ideas that Duke proposed? Full public disclosure of every expense? Judicial review and micro-management of every aspect of their lives? That would be incredibly expensive, far more expensive than whatever fraud/abuse you'd cut down.

 

So even from a simply pragmatic standpoint, you'd need to do a cost-benefit analysis.

 

Again, why not talk about the other measures noted in this thread and not the extreme version. Upping enforcement and making purchases of unacceptable goods (and punishments for doing same) would increase the efficiency of the entire system. Tracking purchases with random audits might force other people to be accountable for what they purchase.

 

Increased social stigmatization, increased costs, increased case loads, increased bureaucracy, invasion of privacy, false-positives that keep aid from needy people.

 

Lol, so now you worry about costs? Think of it as economic stimulus - we employ people AND spend more money! Economic growth for sure!

[Jenksismyhero]

Exactly what? Gun control looks to limit gun violence. While cost and burdens need to be examined, they are not the same thing that the end goal is trying to achieve. With efforts to control fraud and waste, however, it's exactly the same thing. Does it make sense to spend $10 to eliminate $1 of fraud?

 

I think you're falling victim to seeing the desire for gun controls as a desire for "punishment" for something or somebody I don't like. If you instead look at both on the axis of "minimizing human suffering," even if you don't agree with the values I'd place or the end goals I'd like to reach, you'd see why the comparison doesn't really make much sense.

 

You're basing your gun restrictions on some unproven assumption that the restrictions will making a meaningful dent in gun violence. You have no evidence either way, yet you still want to enact those measures. How can you turn around and claim that because we/I don't know the specific fraud % it might be a big waste of money and therefore not worth it?

 

And you can keep spinning gun restrictions as not being a punishment, but it is. You're enacting restrictions on 99% of people who do nothing wrong. It might not be a punishment from the perspective of your intent, but it's certainly a punishment as a result.

[StrangeSox]

Again, why not talk about the other measures noted in this thread and not the extreme version. Upping enforcement and making purchases of unacceptable goods (and punishments for doing same) would increase the efficiency of the entire system. Tracking purchases with random audits might force other people to be accountable for what they purchase.

 

Junkfood and soda currently aren't unacceptable purchases. If you want to make them unacceptable, have fun fighting the Agri-corn lobby.

 

Food aid purchases are already tracked. Medicaid purchases are tracked. What further purchases are you trying to track here? The only thing you're left with is the small amount of money distributed in cash aid. How are you going to track this and determine whether an expenditure is valid or not? What will this cost and what's the total estimated scope of the spending you're worried about here? How many resources are we going to waste persecuting the poor because some don't spend aid money how you'd prefer them to?

 

Lol, so now you worry about costs? Think of it as economic stimulus - we employ people AND spend more money! Economic growth for sure!

 

Not exactly a particularly efficient form of stimulus, nor would it be stimulus if it's meant to be a permanent program. It's only in conservatives' minds that liberals and progressives don't actually care about efficacy and efficiency of programs.

Edited March 4, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

You're basing your gun restrictions on some unproven assumption that the restrictions will making a meaningful dent in gun violence. You have no evidence either way, yet you still want to enact those measures. How can you turn around and claim that because we/I don't know the specific fraud % it might be a big waste of money and therefore not worth it?

 

Because again, gun control isn't a cost-saving measure while fraud-prevention is. If you don't have any idea what the fraud rate is and how expensive your proposed programs would be, how can you say you support them or that they're good ideas? Reasonable measurements and estimates can be made of these things while the effects of gun control are more second-order effects.

 

side note: it's easier to get a gun in most states than it is to get welfare

And you can keep spinning gun restrictions as not being a punishment, but it is. You're enacting restrictions on 99% of people who do nothing wrong. It might not be a punishment from the perspective of your intent, but it's certainly a punishment as a result.

 

A policy that has a negative effect on you is not by definition a punishment, but I'd say that for the comparison you're trying to draw, intention and goals are important.

Edited March 4, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

I knew I'd seen this, it just took me half a day of random googling to find it.

 

This is the problem with requiring that people on food stamps. Keep in mind for scale, most food stamp programs are reported to come out at about $4 a day.

Healthy eating really does cost more.

 

That’s what University of Washington researchers found when they compared the prices of 370 foods sold at supermarkets in the Seattle area. Calorie for calorie, junk foods not only cost less than fruits and vegetables, but junk food prices also are less likely to rise as a result of inflation. The findings, reported in the current issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, may help explain why the highest rates of obesity are seen among people in lower-income groups.

 

The scientists took an unusual approach, essentially comparing the price of a calorie in a junk food to one consumed in a healthier meal. Although fruits and vegetables are rich in nutrients, they also contain relatively few calories. Foods with high energy density, meaning they pack the most calories per gram, included candy, pastries, baked goods and snacks.

 

The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods.

 

The survey also showed that low-calorie foods were more likely to increase in price, surging 19.5 percent over the two-year study period. High-calorie foods remained a relative bargain, dropping in price by 1.8 percent.

 

Although people don’t knowingly shop for calories per se, the data show that it’s easier for low-income people to sustain themselves on junk food rather than fruits and vegetables, says the study’s lead author Adam Drewnowski, director of the center for public health nutrition at the University of Washington. Based on his findings, a 2,000-calorie diet would cost just $3.52 a day if it consisted of junk food, compared with $36.32 a day for a diet of low-energy dense foods.

[mr_genius]

I knew I'd seen this, it just took me half a day of random googling to find it.

 

This is the problem with requiring that people on food stamps. Keep in mind for scale, most food stamp programs are reported to come out at about $4 a day......

"Based on his findings, a 2,000-calorie diet would cost just $3.52 a day if it consisted of junk food, compared with $36.32 a day for a diet of low-energy dense foods."

 

 

i eat healthy and i don't spend anywhere near $37 a day on groceries.

Edited March 4, 2013 by mr_genius

[EvilMonkey]

The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods.

 

The survey also showed that low-calorie foods were more likely to increase in price, surging 19.5 percent over the two-year study period. High-calorie foods remained a relative bargain, dropping in price by 1.8 percent.

 

Although people don’t knowingly shop for calories per se, the data show that it’s easier for low-income people to sustain themselves on junk food rather than fruits and vegetables, says the study’s lead author Adam Drewnowski, director of the center for public health nutrition at the University of Washington. Based on his findings, a 2,000-calorie diet would cost just $3.52 a day if it consisted of junk food, compared with $36.32 a day for a diet of low-energy dense foods.

That is just wrong. What did this guy do, go buy peas one at a time from Whole Foods? Buy a can of Campbells Soup and a few bananas, there is lunch for less than $4. You can buy a whole roasted chicken for $6 and another $1 for a can of peas. Dinner for 2, or more. $36? Yeah, right. And that $3.52, 2000 calorie diet would be one bag of potato chips.

[CrimsonWeltall]

i eat healthy and i don't spend anywhere near $37 a day on groceries.

 

Seriously. The math is funky here.

 

Also, most Americans could use less calories...

[Balta1701]

That is just wrong. What did this guy do, go buy peas one at a time from Whole Foods? Buy a can of Campbells Soup and a few bananas, there is lunch for less than $4. You can buy a whole roasted chicken for $6 and another $1 for a can of peas. Dinner for 2, or more. $36? Yeah, right. And that $3.52, 2000 calorie diet would be one bag of potato chips.

So are you up for the eat on $4 a day challenge?

[EvilMonkey]

So are you up for the eat on $4 a day challenge?

With this diet I am on it probably is close to that what it costs.

[Reddy]

I knew I'd seen this, it just took me half a day of random googling to find it.

 

This is the problem with requiring that people on food stamps. Keep in mind for scale, most food stamp programs are reported to come out at about $4 a day.

 

This is called bad math, bad science, and straight up manipulation. I spend $50 a week and eat 2500 to 3000 cal a day. All healthy foods.

[Jake]

This is called bad math, bad science, and straight up manipulation. I spend $50 a week and eat 2500 to 3000 cal a day. All healthy foods.

 

It said specifically that all the foods were of low calorie density. If you're buying organic, whole food products with very low calorie density...things could add up but it wouldn't be very fun to eat either.

[Reddy]

It said specifically that all the foods were of low calorie density. If you're buying organic, whole food products with very low calorie density...things could add up but it wouldn't be very fun to eat either.

Nor would it be very nutritious. If you eat nothing but veggies you miss an awful lot of nutrients.

 

The problem is that the $4/day is legitimately something people do. No one eats JUST vegetables if they're trying to hit 2,000 cal. It's a terrible comparison and it's manipulative and misleading.

[Jenksismyhero]

The Sequester In One Easy Chart:

 

[DukeNukeEm]

Can the resident state-worshippers tell me how the government does nearly four times the amount of "stuff" it does now than when it was fighting a two front total war on opposite sides of the planet? Every time I see that chart I ask myself that question.

[Reddy]

Go ahead and ignore the absolute skyrocket under Bush... lol

[Jenksismyhero]

Go ahead and ignore the absolute skyrocket under Bush... lol

 

Who gives a crap how we got to this point, let's fix the problem.

[DukeNukeEm]

Who gives a crap how we got to this point, let's fix the problem.

To them its not a problem. That's their baby and it needs to be fed to grow.