- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Food Stamps
Posted on 1/17/17 at 10:36 am
Posted on 1/17/17 at 10:36 am
I see a lot of articles lately about both fraud and what people deem "illegitimate" use of food stamps. (buying candy, steaks, etc.)
I've always though that the most effective way to truly help those in need would be to simply give them cash. Cash, having no restrictions, allows people to invest that money how they best see fit - car, house, food, whatever is best for them. In theory, the ones who truly want to improve their lives will be able to spend less on food, if they want to, and instead spend more on clothes or transportation to find work. This could inherently decrease the amount of money spend on frivolous food items like steak and crab legs.
However, the obvious caveat would be that these benefits should neither be unlimited nor perpetual. There has to be an incentive for people to use these social programs to get to a point where they are self sufficient.
What do you think? I'm trying to consider this from a purely economic perspective. This model could apply to housing and other programs as well.
Some reference articles:
CEPR
Bloomberg1
Bloomberg2
Slate
I've always though that the most effective way to truly help those in need would be to simply give them cash. Cash, having no restrictions, allows people to invest that money how they best see fit - car, house, food, whatever is best for them. In theory, the ones who truly want to improve their lives will be able to spend less on food, if they want to, and instead spend more on clothes or transportation to find work. This could inherently decrease the amount of money spend on frivolous food items like steak and crab legs.
However, the obvious caveat would be that these benefits should neither be unlimited nor perpetual. There has to be an incentive for people to use these social programs to get to a point where they are self sufficient.
What do you think? I'm trying to consider this from a purely economic perspective. This model could apply to housing and other programs as well.
Some reference articles:
CEPR
Bloomberg1
Bloomberg2
Slate
This post was edited on 1/17/17 at 10:41 am
31
Posted on 1/17/17 at 10:46 am to seawolf06
quote:
I've always though that the most effective way to truly help those in need would be to simply give them cash. Cash, having no restrictions, allows people to invest that money how they best see fit - car, house, food, whatever is best for them. In theory, the ones who truly want to improve their lives will be able to spend less on food, if they want to, and instead spend more on clothes or transportation to find work
You're right, IN THEORY. While I'm sure this might benefit some people, we all know what the majority of the 40 million+ would do with it.
Nothing is more frustrating that seeing people check out with carts full of frozen pizzas and two liters of coke and then swiping an EBT card.
How would it go over if the gov started to severely limit what could be bought with these cards? Bread, cheese, eggs, milk, only certain meats, produce, grains, etc
Posted on 1/17/17 at 10:49 am to seawolf06
Cash is too universal. It could be exploited to buy drugs or invest in human trafficking.
A monitored debit card system would be far more useful. It could only be used at specific stores and gas stations.
Or make a system where people are mandated to provide a receipt of any tansaction if they use EBT. Punishment for not monitoring their purchases is a deduction to their EBT limit.
The issue is that alot of people simply don't want to do better. They would rather live off the government than work to be a provider.
A monitored debit card system would be far more useful. It could only be used at specific stores and gas stations.
Or make a system where people are mandated to provide a receipt of any tansaction if they use EBT. Punishment for not monitoring their purchases is a deduction to their EBT limit.
The issue is that alot of people simply don't want to do better. They would rather live off the government than work to be a provider.
This post was edited on 1/17/17 at 10:51 am
Posted on 1/17/17 at 10:49 am to Haydo
quote:
How would it go over if the gov started to severely limit what could be bought with these cards? Bread, cheese, eggs, milk, only certain meats, produce, grains, etc
You think the women's protest could be troublesome? You'd be dealing with all-out rioting.
But given that nearly everything outside of fresh produce has UPC codes (and even those have stickers to help the cashier differentiate between types of oranges and stuff), it wouldn't be that difficult to limit what could and could not be bought.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 10:50 am to seawolf06
If poor people were good with handling cash they wouldn't be poor.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:00 am to seawolf06
Rim dealers around the country would definitely get behind this
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:15 am to seawolf06
quote:
Food Stamps
That is self explanatory. Aid in acquiring nourishment.
Provide actual food, like they used to.
If one doesn't like what is offered, they don't actually need the food.
Give them cash???? Are you serious? What would that be called "Money Stamps"?
*so basically, put everyone on "disability" i.e. "I don't have the ability to feed myself"*
This post was edited on 1/17/17 at 11:16 am
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:19 am to seawolf06
quote:
the most effective way to truly help those in need
is to get GOVERNMENT out of the business of helping those in need
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:21 am to seawolf06
Giving cash to people that are so dysfunctional that they can't even care for themselves is a recipe for disaster.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:27 am to seawolf06
We should privatize a "work for cash" program to the industries in every state. Basically, private firms would advertise for employees, and the destitute could apply for the work. If selected, they can negotiate a mutual price for said labor. Employers could include benefits such as 2 liter faygo bonuses.
I think that will feed a lot of poor people
I think that will feed a lot of poor people
This post was edited on 1/17/17 at 11:29 am
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:30 am to seawolf06
I don't think people truly understand the purpose of food stamps. I didn't either until recently.
The purpose of welfare is not to help people. It's to keep them satisfied. Give them an Obama phone, cheap housing, internet and a full belly and you never have to worry about them rising up. They will float along in life without causing problems.
It's a security measure.
The purpose of welfare is not to help people. It's to keep them satisfied. Give them an Obama phone, cheap housing, internet and a full belly and you never have to worry about them rising up. They will float along in life without causing problems.
It's a security measure.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:33 am to seawolf06
quote:
Cash, having no restrictions, allows people to invest that money how they best see fit -
blunt wraps, 40s, shoes, whatever is best for them.
FIFY
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:34 am to seawolf06
SNAP was created to be a program that supplements the food budget for an individual/family. It was never intended for what it has morphed into - which is where people are using it as their sole food budget. The problem is that SNAP benefits for an individual with either no income, or incredibly low income, provides them with monthly food benefits that are higher than many of us spend on ourselves. If you truly wanted to return it to a "supplemental" program then the benefits received need to be decreased so that individuals are no longer relying on it as their sole food budget and buying expensive items. I also think that if you receive SNAP benefits that you should be required to attend an annual class on how to budget and one on how to prepare low-cost, nutritious, meals.
I don't begrudge SNAP recipients occasionally purchasing "luxury" items such as crab legs or snacks but it is an issue when they are purchasing such items in large quantities instead of focusing on nutritious, less expensive items, as a way to stretch their budgets.
I don't begrudge SNAP recipients occasionally purchasing "luxury" items such as crab legs or snacks but it is an issue when they are purchasing such items in large quantities instead of focusing on nutritious, less expensive items, as a way to stretch their budgets.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:36 am to Zach
quote:
If poor people were good with handling cash they wouldn't be poor.
You're right about that, for the majority of individuals living in poverty but much of that comes from a lack of education on how to properly budget.
You also routinely see people, illegally, selling their SNAP benefits for $0.50 on the dollar. That is such a ridiculously low amount that I can't believe this is the common SNAP to Cash exchange rate.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:38 am to MrCarton
And to make the deal even sweeter, some employers could offer benefits such as retirement and insurance, which in turn could eliminate SS and ACA.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:39 am to seawolf06
You don't give these people $$$ for the same reason you don't give it to a guy begging on the street corner.
They won't spend it properly.
Food stamps should be restricted, just like WIC. If people are "shamed" by it, then good. It's the least they can do, is feel a little shame, for taking $ out of the pockets of their fellow citizens.
They won't spend it properly.
Food stamps should be restricted, just like WIC. If people are "shamed" by it, then good. It's the least they can do, is feel a little shame, for taking $ out of the pockets of their fellow citizens.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:40 am to seawolf06
quote:
I've always though that the most effective way to truly help those in need would be to simply give them cash.
I was involved in food distribution in EBR Parrish before there were Food Stamps, actually handing out the food at Ryan Airport.
I believe we should go back to that. I think it would be cost effective, insure the proper foods were available to those in need, particularly the children.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:41 am to volod
quote:
It could be exploited to buy drugs or invest in human trafficking.
underrated comment.
'hookers and blow'
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:41 am to seawolf06
Poor, dumb ppl are not going to invest free cash
WTF
WTF
This post was edited on 1/17/17 at 11:42 am
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:46 am to Aristo
quote:
And to make the deal even sweeter, some employers could offer benefits such as retirement and insurance, which in turn could eliminate SS and ACA.
Right! perhaps employers could band together and create a giant pool of employees and use that pool to get lower insurance rates, which they could then use to entice employees!
The possibilities are endless!
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News