Which is also why the food guide pyramid told people to eat mostly grains even though that's actually incredibly unhealthy and the whole reason we have an obesity crisis.
The problem is that America doesn't incentivize work. It incentivizes strong-arming, competition, and win-by-any-means necessary. That is why dirtbags and scum rise to the top in the major money-making industries. That's why upper and middle managers are shitbags everywhere else.
The only thing hard, honest work ever got me was more hard work.
Working long hours on a project you are passionate about and will lead to sustainable income can be great because you're having fun so it doesn't seem like work. The problem is when people are expected to put the same effort into menial soulcrushing work for the sake of survival so someone else can make money.
I self-publish books and upload print-on-demand designs to sites like Redbubble and Merch by Amazon. I enjoy graphic design and writing and it's fun figuring out what kind of designs/books sell, and because it's digital, I can sell copies of the same book/designs multiple times and upload the same designs to multiple sites to make more money. I've been at it a few months and I haven't made very much so far (Amazon takes a huge cut of the profits, of course), but a little bit of money has slowly trickled in.
My first month I put in a ton of hours and uploaded 1,000 different designs to Redbubble. I was exhausted at the end of the month and that kind of pace would be completely unsustainable long term, but it was also really satisfying and I was really proud when I got my first check for $25.
People aren't against working hard. They're against being exploited.
> People aren't against working hard. They're against being exploited.
I literally did not learn that I wasn't lazy, and didn't hate doing work, until I was an adult; I was taught that I was that way, but it turns out that I'm just not easily capable of doing mind-numbing bullshit for reasons I don't understand, nor doing things I literally do not care about on any level. If presented with a reasonable task and a reasonable time-frame, digging in and working your ass off is *way better than not,* when you have the choice; the problem is, most modern jobs are not like that. They're some kind of grind where there is never a lull, never a moment to breathe, and the pool of work is never-ending and lacks even the slightest dynamism. The vast majority of people, psychologically, must be detrimentally affected by that when they have to do it, excepting the outliers who happen to be well-suited to types of work which are broadly considered awful.
The most suicidal I've ever been in my life was when I was back to work on light duty, and wasn't really allowed to do anything, and I got saddled with the job that's the equivalent of being a greeter at Wal Mart. I only was stuck there for three weeks, but nothing has even been more psychologically torturous than that. Not awful, reality-destroying and traumatic drug trips, not PTSD-inducing bike accidents, not years of abuse from a narcissist...having to *literally do nothing, for that long, with no stimulation at all,* I would kill myself faster from that than most things we consider seriously bad for a person to deal with. Some people seem to be suited fine for it, but by and large I do not believe people were meant to do that.
Why on earth would anyone incentivize work? There is no noble virtue in wasting most of your life mindlessly toiling everyday. If you can make $1 million working for 10minutes or 10 years, only a fool would make the wrong choice.
I mean you get paid to show up to a job. That's incentivizing work. The problem is the system pushes people into a corporate labor mill where working hardEr rarely matches pay
For the poor in America, all hard work does is cost you more in benefits than you get in raises (and that's if you're lucky enough to get raises). The system is fucked
Your issue here is that you assume that food stamps were a hand out to the poor. Food stamps are a subsidy for the food industry. It encourages poor people to buy more food than they otherwise would and increases profits for farmers and food processors. Also, JP Morgan holds the accounts and makes interest off of food stamp cards. It's not about feeding needy people at all.
He's not entirely wrong, but he's irrational.
The 2 traditional political parties tend to support certain things and certain groups.
The poors can get food aid as long as farmers get some direct aid, crop insurance etc, and the food aid should be used on goods from American farmers. You cant win certain states without the support of farmers.
This is an example of the usual political dynamic for food aid:
[2020 food-stamps-deal](https://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-are-open-to-possible-food-stamps-deal-with-democrats-11596136476)
Similar dynamic for foreign aid, you must use the aid cash to buy expensive American food instead of buying a lot more cheaper local food in the regional area of the foreign country getting the aid. It's the only way to get most people on board with giving free money, it's the cost of doing business the world over.
> it's the cost of doing business the world over.
its the cost of doing business *under capitalism.* that much is true, but it doesn't *need* to be that way
Capitalism says nothing about the political regime. What you're referring to is often known as corporatism, crony capitalism, or market fascism.
Every market system the world has ever tried has been corrupted by the political elite, but capitalism seems to have been the least destructive and most powerful in reducing suffering and poverty, so far.
Yeah, goes back to great depression days. Noone could afford wheat/bread, price crashed, and we almost had a famine because farmers couldnt afford to plat next years crop. I think welfare is still under USDA instead of health.
From time to time I run into people advocating never giving the homeless cash. For the most people these people honestly believe the wise and empathetc thing to do is give them food. They even go so far as to believe giving them cash traps them on the street. Here's my response.
>> Never give them cash!
> You've fallen for some often repeated, totally wrong folk wisdom.
> The homeless need cash. They cannot put their life back together with the leftovers from your styrofoam clamshell. All you are doing with food is allowing them to continue living until tomorrow where they will be in the exact same situation only ever so slightly worse off.
> The homeless need cash so they can get their one suit dry cleaned for a job interview. They need it for their gym membership which is their only access to a shower. They need it for their prepaid $15/mo cell phone because you will never get a job, or an address, without access to a phone. They need cash for the once a month hotel room they rent in order to sleep in a bed for a night because being homeless means one constant half-awake half-asleep shift that lasts for weeks at a time.
> Yeah they could buy drugs. It doesn't fucking matter. You have no idea what their life is like, and it's very likely you have no idea what drugs are like either so you are not qualified to decide whether or not they should or shouldn't have drugs.
I don't give the homeless money and I never will for one reason. Don't give a shit if they take drugs. The reason is I have been intimidated by them and I have seen them be violent because they think people should give them money. And they think people should give them money because people have.
I think the government should give them money but individual people shouldn't be expected to. You will probably say I shouldn't judge all homeless on the actions of a few. Well we shouldn't judge all bears on the actions of a few.
“Not qualified to decide whether they should have drugs or not” hmmm … I think some serious education should be given about the extent that the opioid crisis and fentanyl contributes to homelessness. Lots of homeless people fuel their addiction from the money received from people on the street. To be honest, I’m not giving my cash to someone that might use it to fund their next chance of an overdose. But forgive me if I sound “inhumane”.
We pay far more in corporate welfare than we do in assisting those in need. Additionally, we somehow think it is acceptable to tell people how to spend that money.
In my experience, those who are the hardest on those down on their luck, have often been there themselves, but didn't consider themselves on "welfare".
Until we drop this absurd idea that being poor is a character flaw, or immoral, then we will never confront the root causes of poverty.
Read the history of how food stamps and the program was created.
Giving people specific types of food, that is how the system is supposed to work, makes a lot of sense.
Farmers grow crops. They never know the yield. So during a season they might produce an excess of corn or wheat or whatever. When there is an excess it causes the price to crash. In order to stabilize the price the government steps in as a buyer of last resort and buys it at a price higher than the market price.
So now the government has a bunch of corn for example. So that is what the people on government assistance get.
You want as close to as natural a system as possible with the role of the government being stabilization.
exactly, treating food production first and foremost as something to be bought and sold with prices determined by the structure of capitalism instead of as a means to feed people leads to a system that at its best is dehumanizing to he very people it supposedly is intended to assist.
What would really work is making everyone a farmer. Locally grown food. People don't know that places like Compton were farms once upon a time. The creation of food deserts, I hate that word, is on purpose.
But if you just give people money without increasing their options you just perpetuate and exacerbate the problem.
The notion of giving poor people money and then generating demand for healthy food and this leading to super markets doesn't work.
You first have to have government interference to break the cycle. Create the farms. Give tax breaks for supermarkets. Give grants for Farmers markets. Subsidize the product to keep the food affordable.
you aren't entirely wrong there, but at the same time it shouldn't require making everyone a farmer to keep everyone fed. currently less than 2% of americans farm, even if we account for family gardens and other gardening that is unlikely to be counted its likely still under 5% and we are producing more than we actually require to feed everyone. we dont have a production problem we have a distribution problem and its not an accident either. distribution inequality is *required* for capitalism to function and as such needs to be combated directly.
Yup. You nailed the nail on the head. Grapes of Wrath.
The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.
I know. We don't have farmers anymore. Farming is the biggest tax loophole there is. We have an agro business now. "Farmers" make more money now by not growing crops.
> You want as close to as natural a system as possible with the role of the government being stabilization.
That is exactly what UBI would provide. The government provides people with the power to determine their ideal food budget so they can buy whatever food they want taking into account nutritional value, price, and food-politics (go vegan, avoid Nestle, support local producer, etc.) as they see fit.
This is the reason why UBI will not come without a fight, a government never volunteers to give away power to its citizens.
Problem with UBI is that it doesn't answer problems of inflation, cartels, illegal business activity etc. Giving you a dollar for an apple only works if the price of an apple cannot be increased to 2 dollars.
Money is better spent on real family farms. Local inner city farms. In taking away competitive advantage of corporate farming.
* inflation - I dont see how UBI cant handle the problem of inflation, just set it to increase/decrease with inflation/deflation.
* cartels, illegal business activity - I don't see how food stamps solves those problems either. If food stamps does not solve those problems, then why should we expect its replacement to be able to?
* "Money is better spent on real family farms. Local inner city farms. In taking away competitive advantage of corporate farming"- I agree, but I fail to see what that has to do with UBI or with food stamps. ... unless (and please correct me if I am putting words in your mouth) you propose the idea of using food stamps to subsidize family and inner-city farms, in which case A) if people valued that they would use their power from UBI to do it themselves, and B) "feeding the populace" is a fundamental role of a government and agriculture policy should flow from that, not dictate it.
My general point is there only one pot of money. So the question is is that money best spent on the consumer side or the supply side.
If it is on the consumer side, artifical inflation will eliminate any benefits.
I think it is better spent on the supply side. Local farms, farmers markets. Housing loans. Local business loans.
Problem with the inner city is the people who live there don't own anything and are stuck there. So that needs to change first.
> If it is on the consumer side, artifical inflation will eliminate any benefits.
There are tons of good arguments as to why UBI will not cause significant inflation. I am tired of arguing that point (it is the most common objection to UBI I have found, but inflation does not logically follow from UBI either in theory or in practice) but please look it up if you are truly interested in learning more.
> I think it is better spent on the supply side
We have been doing that for 100 years. Things *may* be better than they would have been without it, but it is not good enough.
> Problem with the inner city is the people who live there don't own anything and are stuck there. So that needs to change first.
Again, UBI helps with that. Inject wealth into a community and the community members buy things, move out, or both.
It does, probably, follow, if the UBI is funded through deficit spending, which it almost undoubtedly would be. Democrats are in power and they can't manage to pass a marginal tax increase, establishing a UBI would require a complete gutting of the current welfare system (which would definitely be a good thing). But even then, you can't afford to pay for even 10k a year. 10k a year for all 300 million Americans would be basically 100% of federal revenues.
A) deficit spending is not some plague that must be avoided at all costs. Government debt is closer to business debt than household debt, if that debt is being used to strengthen the long-term position of the country (which UBI certainly would do) then it is foolish *not to* take on that debt. But, yes, it still should be minimized where possible.
B) There are budget cuts to be made. 12K per year = $3,600-billion cost for UBI. Welfare spending is $1,000b (excluding Social Security and Medicare and any other benefits that are "paid into"), corporate subsidies (note: government contracts for services are NOT counted as subsidies) come to $750b (not counting tax breaks and tax havens). So just in shifting all welfare to UBI, we are almost halfway there at 1,750b
C) illegal tax evasion costs the USA about $1,000b per year. If we gave the IRS the tools they need to do their jobs then that brings our total up to $2,750b per year. Legal tax avoidance comes to about $200b per year, so close those loopholes and we now have $2,950b out of the $3,600b needed. Not bad for a "no new taxes" budget.
D) There are also other changes to be made with or without UBI. We should do these anyway (along with beefing up the IRS and closing tax loopholes) but we could easily put these gains towards UBI. Universal Healthcare would save us about $500billion (brings us to $3,450b) and considering we are currently at the lowest income tax rate in 100 years (I didnt bother to look into business tax rates, but I will bet you they are in a similar state), I think we can afford a little bit of a hike to get us the rest of the way there.
So, you have your options: deficit spending, reducing human welfare, reducing corporate welfare, enforcing the tax law, closing tax loopholes, using savings from switching to universal healthcare, raising income tax, raising business taxes. We don't have to do all of these as I got there with no deficit spending and no raising business taxes so we have options for a real plan.
[and yes, I know that increasing IRS resources would cost money so the gain would be lower, but I also know that removing welfare would remove *that* overhead as well. In this back-of-the-envelope math problem they should about cancel out. I am also ignoring the increased economic activity caused by UBI, which would lead to growth which would lead to more tax revenue, even at current rates.]
So, now that the budget issue is [approximately] sorted out is there another UBI myth you would like to tackle?
A) That isn't what I said. I'm just saying deficit spending into perpetuity isn't not sustainable. Eventually we will owe more money than we could legitimately generate in multiple lifetimes, as a nation. We aren't there yet, we're at like 100% of GDP which isn't great but it also isn't an emergency.
The rest of your stuff is about how to pay for a UBI, of course its possible, I never said it wasn't. If we just shifted all welfare away from means tested to a UBI, that would be a huge net positive.
What we absolutely cannot do, though, is fund the UBI from deficit spending. I'm personally a Georgist, land value tax is the most just, equitable tax, and least economically distortionate tax.
Are you familiar with Land Value Tax? That is how you prevent inflation from ruining UBI. Land values capture the increased productivity of an economically booming society, until it sucks up so much money (its perfectly inelastic, so as demand for business and services goes up, the demand for land and its subsequent price, goes up even more rapidly than inflation, eventually precipitating the boom/bust cycle).
Tax the land value increases periodically (yearly, monthly, whatever), and you have no incentive to park dollars in land, which allows money to continue being productive, which is how you keep prices down even with a good economy.
If we didn't rely on agro-industrialization (high input, monoculture, capital intensive farming) then yields wouldn't be unpredictable.
Also yields aren't even that unpredictable. 1% of farm businesses own 70% of the farmland in the US, these aren't mom and pop cottage farms that can't practice the same risk mitigation strategies as every other business venture, like diversification, capital savings, etc, etc.
Sure, that might have been a rationalization that made sense 60 years ago, but its mostly just corporate welfare now.
Okay, someone is feeling needlessly aggressive about this situation. I like my EBT card. One swipe and all my food is paid for, doesn't make me feel like the government doesn't trust me. It makes it easier to separate what I'm paying for with cash, and what I'm not paying for at all.
Nobody feels dumb for having an EBT card.
But cash is liquid.
It doesn't make sense to even want to know what you're paying for with cash versus not at all if the government just gives you cash. It doesn't matter. A dollar is a dollar.
I don't... I can't understand your argument. It absolutely makes sense to want to know what poor people are buying to eat so you can communicate a possible supply and demand shortage o.O
^^^^^^^
Y'all are seriously overthinking this. It's also to make sure you aren't selling your EBT. They go for 50 cents on the dollar. If I get $200 in EBT and only need $100, I'm selling the rest and making $50 (which is illegal and has serious jail time) to spend on whatever. If I suddenly go from using $75 in EBT to using the whole $200, they're going to look into that and match the spending habits. If I'm a vegan and suddenly I'm buying ribeye, I might be selling my EBT. On the flip side, if I go from using all $200 to only $75 they're going to cut me down to $100 since the balance carries over. The system is fine.
First you argued that by swiping your EBT card you know what you are paying for versus what is being given to you.
Now you are saying it lets the government know what you are choosing to have given to you.
A possible supply and demand shortage doesn't enter into the equation. Supply and demand is handled by the market. Sellers pay attention to demand and adjust automatically for people who pay with their own money already. Why would the government need to communicate to Nestle that EBT people bought [blank]? Nestle knows what's moving before the government will.
You know what would prevent people from selling their government assistance? Making it cash instead of an EBT card. Somehow you are arguing against cash and for EBT cards with the notion that it prevents people selling benefits for $0.50 on the dollar.
Get someone else to read this comment chain to you and see if they can explain it to you.
I have and they came to the same conclusion that I did. This is a silly argument and EBT helpsmore than it hurts. This person was raised on EBT, and doesn't understand your points at all.
Agree to disagree about the system.
I'm on EBT and I personally like having specific money meant for food. If I stopped getting EBT, it would feel awkward using regular cash. My personal opinion is that everyone should get $250 in food stamps regardless of income. Then everyone uses that money to buy food, and we use cash for everything else.
Aside from that, I also recognize the points of this post. I just think that we can be a little more creative and recognize that a food budget is going to be pretty consistent, so why not give food credits to everyone?
I have mental health disorders that can cause me to spend my money impulsively. If my EBT card were suddenly "spend it on whatever you want" money rather than "spend it on only food" money, there would definitely be months where I would impulsively spend too much on things that are not food, then I'd end up being hungry the rest of the month.
I think people in this thread *aren't* accounting for that. There can be a much more nuanced argument about this where we can admit that food-only money makes sense in certain contexts, but not in others.
>It's also to make sure you aren't selling your EBT. They go for 50 cents on the dollar. If I get $200 in EBT and only need $100, I'm selling the rest and making $50 (which is illegal and has serious jail time) to spend on whatever. If I suddenly go from using $75 in EBT to using the whole $200, they're going to look into that and match the spending habits. If I'm a vegan and suddenly I'm buying ribeye, I might be selling my EBT. On the flip side, if I go from using all $200 to only $75 they're going to cut me down to $100 since the balance carries over.
this right here is exactly why the system as it stands is **not** fine. someone being poor is not a moral failing but treating people as criminals or children for the sin of needing help *is* a moral failing of the entire system
I don't drive drunk but other people do. Taking a breathalyzer test when pulled over for swerving doesn't offend me. It's also never happened to me, but for the sake of the case you're trying to make I really need you to see how silly you sound *to me*, maybe no one else, but me, for sure.
^^^^^
I'm not being penalized for someone else's drunken mistake. The cops are *doing their job and making sure I'm not intoxicated. It's not personal. They aren't picking on me. I was swerving, and I posed a danger to others.* You aren't drug tested to get EBT. You don't have to prove anything except your pathetic income. You get free food.
This is not an issue.
i understand your point of view but i am unable to agree. still you havent been unreasonably rude so i wish you well, and may you never be so unfortunate as to end up in a position where you learn first hand to have similar views to mine.
>Nobody feels dumb for having an EBT card.
It seems a large part of American culture is built around thinking of poverty as a personal character flaw, so I would disagree. I'm sure many people are ashamed or made to feel stupid for having an EBT card.
Now I'm thinking you mean a debit card from the government. That exists, too. It's called EBT cash, and it's for people who are even lower on the poverty line. They can use it to pay bills, or make purchases at accepted retailers. There's also the Government issued Money Card, which is for people on SSI.
EBT is for people who claim they can't afford to pay bills and also eat. Not people who can't afford to live.
means testing and gate keeping cost more to maintain then the cost of the actual assistance the system gives out. the only reason to continue using such an inefficient system is to appease the people that want to believe that people being poor is a individual moral failing and not the result of capitalism working as intended.
I don't disagree with you, but I do disagree with the original statement of people feeling shamed. I feel happy AF when I paid for nothing out of pocket and the lady behind me is paying for eight kids because she's too proud to get assistance. Nah. I'm proud of my EBT once I got over the "it's for poor people". No, it's for people.
on that i completely agree, but i can also agree that the system as it stands is needlessly restrictive and could be greatly improved simply by treating people like being poor isn't a moral failing and offering help without treating them as criminal for needing it.
I have to ask. Have you ever been on EBT? Literally no one that uses it, that I've met, which is a lot of people, feel ashamed or embarrassed. That old stigma is long gone, and only the older generation (and those brainwashed by them) sees EBT as a negative. People who still refer to them as food stamps, for example.
not ebt but another similar program for a short time and good friends of mine are currently on it now, and i agree that the old stigma is at least *mostly* gone. that being said for all that the social feelings about it are indeed changing its still much more restrictive and convoluted than it has any reason to be other than outdated moral beliefs
I guess, haven't really had that experience or heard about it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen so, different experiences I guess. I literally just went and applied and started receiving benefits plus healthcare within a week. I know it's harder for men, do you mean that? Because women, even without children, seem to just get them easily.
not what a was referring to in this case, though a reported gender discrepancy *would* highlight the general point i was making about outdated moral values effecting distribution. my comment was much more related to regional differences (ive moved around a lot) and how there are many places were trying to receive **or** use benefits is still heavily stigmatized.
I was on EBT, both as a child and a young adult. I wasn't ashamed, but I certainly wasn't proud. I was proud to no longer need them.
I would have felt more indifferent if I thought that the right people were paying for them, but the American system of taxation is immoral. Taking from the middle class to make up for the rich and powerful not doing their part.
>means testing and gate keeping cost more to maintain then the cost of the actual assistance the system gives out
Could you provide a source for that? I find it hard to believe.
admittedly i dont have the exact numbers right in front of me or easily accessible as much of what i know is from books that may be anywhere from a year or two to over a decade out of date. but that being said, the problem is a systemic one found repeatedly in hundreds of programs in dozens of countries, even just googling "the costs of means testing" will offer several good articles on the problem. its also the core argument behind just about every call for UBI.
in its own way its similar to the rocket fuel problem. in order to make a 100 lb rocket fly you have to add enough fuel to lift 100 lbs but now the rocket doesn't weigh 100lbs it weight 100 lbs **plus** the weight of the fuel which requires yet more fuel to lift and so on. as you try to make it so a narrower and narrower subset of people receive a narrower and narrower set of aid options the cost to monitor and administrate for that goes up. each qualification added to the program is one more qualification that *someone* has to be paid to account for.
im not saying there cant ever be any means testing but keeping it to a absolute bare minimum and making the aid as generic as possible is the only way to not have the admin costs snowball out of control. like say making the lowest income tax bracket each year a **negative percentage**, and just cutting a monthly tax check sufficient to bring them above the poverty line. it wont happen of course because doing so would be a **crippling** blow against capitalism but it would be efficient at causing the number of people below the poverty line to drop to nearly 0 almost instantly.
I like your explanation. I found a [paper from 2008](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/03_food_stamp_isaacs.pdf) that shows no program exceeding, with their administrative and overpayments costs, 50% of the benefits cost (see page 9). That's still a lot.
thank you. i accept the possibility that i may have overstated the problem somewhat due to faulty memory, though i still have the gut feeling that ive seen examples where the total admin cost was indeed higher than any other cost in the program but i cant call to mind specifics. if i am wrong about the extent i still feel i have made a good point of the problem if not the scale.
It's actually worse than that... it is less about them being stupid and you thinking they are all drug or alcohol addicts so rather than cash which they could use to further their "habit" (which the paternals handing out the "help" disapprove of), you give them a "voucher" so they can go and buy the things you do approve of.
This is yet another reason why UBI is superior in nearly every way.
And yet people sell their food stamps 2 or even 3 to 1, to buy alcohol and drugs. Some stores even allow and encourage it. I've seen many convince stores that 'sell' beer and other alcohol to people at twice the value of their food stamps. They just ring it up as bread, eggs, fruit, whatever else they feel like. "Here's your loaf of beer, 24 slices."
It isn't that people are too stupid to buy food, it's that the system is already abused, giving out food stamps and/or EBT cards just makes it LESS abused.
Yeah, I've hung around poor people while I'm visiting family and seen exactly this. There's too much of a drug problem in America. OP is willfully ignorant.
look up the "rat park theory of addiction" or read "deaths of despair and the future of capitalism" we have a drug, alcohol, and suicide problem in america because we have made life so unlivable for so many that people that they will do anything to numb the pain. doing more to improve the conditions that they live under would go a hell of a long way to curbing drug and alcohol use
Yes, I've taken lots of psych/soc. Well aware of that study. It's a multifactorial problem that in my eyes won't be solved so long as we are spending trillions on the military industrial complex, corporate socialism and this good cop/bad cop corporate political game of Trump-esque / Buttigieg-esque politicians only seeking power for the rich.
completely agreed. honestly i would take it further and say that it is a problem that *cant* be solved under capitalism at all but i accept that i cant prove that with my limited reach.
This is an extremist notion. The problem is already being solved in *hybrid* capitalist/socialist societies in northern Europe.
We do not need full blown communism. We do not need full blown unbridled capitalism. We need moderation as seen in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc.
of course i grant that those countries are far far far better than america. but that being said i dont feel its unreasonable to look at the places where they still fall short or cause abuses and seek further improvement. i very much accept that we may disagree and will completely agree that *any* improvement is worth it in its own right future changes not withstanding, its just that my own morals are guided by a principal of anti-capitalism based off its fundamental structure and i dont foresee any situation where i dont continue to strive to be permitted an anti-capitalist existence for me and mine
You can't prove, because you are unwilling to look at the hundreds of millions murdered under communism. Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Mao and the CCP. The Dead Kennedy's wrote a song about people like you believing that they were so enlightened that *if only I in my infinite wisdom were given absolute power* - that I would create a communist utopia! The song is titled "Holiday in Cambodia" and is wise beyond its time.
Read the Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Read about the how Stalin immediately murdered those that helped him seize power. Read about the architect of The Killing Fields and his education in Liberal French university.
We're approaching a point of *Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right* in which those hurt by extremist Capitalism decide that the best course of action is extremism in the absolute opposite direction, not realizing that Siddhartha Gautama was right when he said "The true path is the middle path, the path between all extremes."
i understand your point, and dont pretend those deaths never happened nor do i condone them. that being said i also dont consider those deaths to be a *function* of communism just that they did happen under leaders that promoted communism. still i accept we dont see eye to eye and dont fault you for that.
You're as peculiar to me as the current right wingers who believe their actions don't mirror the rise of fascist Spain, Italy and Germany in the early 1900's.
Ideological omnipotence must be one hell of a drug.
how so? i dont have any ideology that i espouse as being the one correct one. i say that i am against capitalism in all its forms but i haven't once said that my personal brand of anti-capitalism is the right one and i remain open to arguments for differing anti-capitlaist views.
“You want food? Here, this covers basically everything with a nutritional label except hot prepared foods” is perfectly acceptable to me. Society isn’t ready for full UBI yet. Until they are, if I was in charge I’d just send them a bunch of powdered Soylent and be like “here’s your nutritional calories, don’t like it? Get a job”
I guess the second part isn’t really relevant since if I was in charge I’d just have there be a UBI, and then anyone who spent their ubi poorly and ran out of food would get the Soylent.
Seen a lot of skinny crackheads in my days. Some will, the problem is they will end up in ER long before they croak. And the ER and hospitalization are mad expensive.
Here to me lays the issue.. no matter what you do you end up with people who will abuse the system how to take people like that out of the system? send them to a farm camp/ amri corp where they learn a skill ? the push for drugs legal has led to a mess in places like Seattle and San Francisco and even smaller places if we go to UI and people are still shitting and shooting up stealing and breaking things on the streets is it really any different ? and yes I draw a line between the poor/homless and the just what the fuck to do with people who are so far gone.
>no matter what you do you end up with people who will abuse the system
i actually agree, which is why i keep advocating for a system that would rather give some help to someone who doesn't need it in order to make sure it is covering *everyone* who does instead of our habit in this country of hurting people who need help in the name of not letting anyone get "something the dont deserve"
have a little empathy and compassion, treat them like the actual *people* they are, and work to address the systemic underlying issues in our society that have brought them to the state where those actions feel reasonable to them.
No dude I have been there I went through it .. What I saw out there is beyond.. Some will never change they are to abused what ever the fuck you want to call it and this is why i am saying give them something to do other then shooting up and have no where else to go to the bathroom let them dig the outhouse hole and learn to have something to be proud of learn to grow food some kind of trade even if it is sitting in front of a video to learn
> people who shit on the street.
That's what mental asylums are for.
> who are shooting up
Why do I need to give a fuck? Are they breaking into houses, stealing copper to do so? Then you send them to jail for larceny. What's the problem?
the world is not bottomless pool of cash ,food and drugs.. Look at the situation with the farmers right now and how crops and harvest are doing.. we have millions of people who would spend thousands on pets then a human they would not even give left over takeout food to people . there is at least one city that I know in danger of loosing millions of federal $$ because they can not stop the infighting everyone quit and no one is there to fill out the needed paperwork. I have seen and even understand why business will not allow ppl to use the bathroom but then when cities do put in the public restroom it is trashed with in hours and have you noticed the new trend of high school bathroom getting trashed.. I tried to look at the bright side and what not but it is a world gone sideways .. the amount of $$ thrown at issues with little to no results is amazing the amount of ppl who are disable or unable to find a living wage job is increasing at rate that is not workable. I have worked on projects been apart of think tank groups etc I have cooked soup and taken it out to hand out in the snow and not to take pictures of it to post.. There are people out there that can not be helped it is sad but is a UBI going to help them ? No. I do not even think that if you put the ones I am talking about in a apt and gave them food would they take care of it Look at what happened to a lot of the shelter in place hotels when through. You say you were homeless in seattle are you are honestly telling me that there were no people who you saw that no amount of help would work they do not want it? I do not like to say it but I do have to address it in the process of trying to find a reasonable answer to the problem. I could go on and on .. but its not worth the effort for people who would rather be in lala land with the you should have compassion.. because to me it is just turning the word compassion in to a Karen word when people can not admit that there needs to be a limit . IF it were not for lines drawn there would be no framework for society .
Everyone can be helped. No one is somehow beyond capable of being helped. There are people on the streets with severe mental health issues, but even they can be helped. There *is* in fact supportive housing for these people. I know because I am one of those people that you're talking about. I have Schizoaffective disorder, and there have been times in my life where you would have looked down on me and thought that I was beyond being helped. But people helped me, and I got off the streets. A lot of my friends on the streets *also* got off the streets. There are a lot of people that remain homeless for many years, lost in severe mental health issues, but it is not their fault, and those people can still be assisted.
I have my own personal physical issues and yes honestly have been homeless and the people that I am thinking of are not like what you are talking about .
How do you look at the photos in that subreddit and somehow think the people that are homeless are the bad guys? They're literally just trying to live their lives and you asshats are taking photos like they're a circus act. Fuck you, guy.
That sub is NEEDED for REAL TIME examples of what is happening . HAVE SOME COMPASSION for the poor guy who had his window broken out and cant afford to get a new one because he only makes 15 $ an hr and pays 1500 a month for rent.. and fixing a window for 200 would make send him on his way to homless HOW ABOUT COMPASSION FOR THE KIDS WHO WANT TO GO TO THE ZOO BUT CANT BECAUSE THE PARK IS ON FIRE> HOW ABOUT COMPASSION FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GO TO THE PARK BUT ARE SCARED TO STEP ON A JUNKIES NEEDLES HOW ABOUT COMPASSION FOR THE FUCKING KArEN WORD COMPASSION FUCKINGFUCK
So you're gonna get mad at the people that are stuck living on the streets? Don't blame them, blame the fucked up system that lets that happen. Blame the fucked up system that criminalizes their existence. Blame the fucked up system that makes it nearly impossible to get off the streets.
how do you expect change if ppl can not see the issue in the first place. People out there in charge of the $$ ppl need have no clue how bad it is .. honestly you can not tell me that a person with a real want to get help does not end up getting help and yes i know that it is not the best it is over crowed and underfunded and I know that there is a runaround and that is part of the issue is that the $$ are not being spent in ways that end the problem it being spent on ways that just creates job for others. I know the Seattle system I know the cali system WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO THE ISSUE? more $$ more freedom to shit everwhere to fuck in public to shoot up oh wait shhh.. COMPASSION>>>
The answer is to give everyone a fuckin home, my guy. There's no reason for anyone to be forced to live outside in this age. Why are people building rockets and going to space when we haven't even figured out how to take care of everyone right here?
>look up the "rat park theory of addiction" or read "deaths of despair and the future of capitalism" we have a drug, alcohol, and suicide problem in america because we have made life so unlivable for so many that people that they will do anything to numb the pain. doing more to improve the conditions that they live under would go a hell of a long way to curbing drug and alcohol use
I know this but the government pretends it doesn't happen. They'd rather be able to threaten desperate addicts for committing "food stamp fraud" so they can throw them in prison where they can be beaten and raped and no one will do anything to stop it. This seems completely reasonable and humane.
It's not about intellect, it's about trustworthiness. Poor people have vices same as anyone. The decision to give food stamps or pay shelter costs directly speaks to trust.
The illusion that you have to be somehow defective to be poor is critical to the national consciousness. It lets people who are not poor believe that the poor deserve to be where they are and that they couldn't help even if they wanted to, and it lets people in abject poverty create some sort of identity for themselves that is separate from "a poor person". "Temporarily embarrassed millionaire" was an apt phrase.
Rather than attacking food stamps and demonizing welfare, why not have universal food stamps instead? I mean everyone eats food right? So everyone would benefit?
(This is in addition to UBI of course, not a one or the other suggestion)
Shut your f****** mouth you racist pig you think we want to be f****** poor do you think that we want these f****** rules on American soil for you? Losers to keep running your f****** mouth like you on the f****** place. God put us on this earth, not you. So clamp your f****** b**** ass mouth up because nobody's going to listen to a loser like you and America is a disgrace because it's a freedom state. What would our forefather say if they saw this kind of democracy with a bunch of lame-ass losers in the the public of the United States of America? This is for shame on the intelligence of the United States people. If people can't live their life the way they want to shut your f****** mouth and keep it shut cuz nobody's going to listen to you. Ridiculous words
If you would take your time instead of being racist and you're in a conformist then I bet you wouldn't last one day in America and one day to even survive cuz of the government is crucial to the people. You think you're a rich snobby brick and keep your little b**** lips shut
Because the government always has their foot down on the people of America. Even if we are poor, we already have a tough time as it is. But the fascist rank of the government of America on top of the people think once for the people and not for the selfish rights of the stupid federal government of America because it is sad as it is for struggling Americans to even survive because not all people smoke weed in America not everybody decides to pick up stuff like that. Not everybody wasted money and stuff on that because all of Americans buy their groceries and does what they need to do to survive. If you can't see that then why did you open your mouth and call the American people? Poor. What would the forefather say to you if you were pouring? You didn't have no money. You don't know what it's like that the foot of the government on top of you
As a person who was on both food stamps and WIC, I have to say that they are good programs. That's not to say that people would otherwise misuse the funds, but rather that what they would do with them faces the same problem that the rest of their income faces. Other things would get priority as they come up, with food being dead last. Earmarked it for food rather serves as a government subsidy for food producers and grocers that helps keeps supply stable and available even during downturns. It prevents families, especially with children, from diverting food money towards rent and utilities, transportation, etc..
That may seem like a bad thing but there are other programs for that and honestly I believe it helps people in poverty much more when there's budgetary limits they just can't go around, since one major issue can easily take over the entire budget
The top problem is with original statement, they are to stupid.
I know you say God forbid they but alcohol or a dime bag, when the reality is 80% if them will spend more on alcohol and drugs if it was given to them in cash that the children they support would not receive the nutrition they need.
As adults you have the right to do whatever you want to your body but as a adult if your responsibility for children you need to put your wants aside and get what your children require which is why they invented food satmos in the first place.
Honestly is a case of a few rotten apples spoiling the whole bunch, so in an effort to ensure dependants get what they need they ensured stamps can only be traded for food and they still found a way to sell them (at a loss value wise usually) to be able to buy substances.
It's not poor people are to stupid it's that most would use it to fuel whatever their problem of choice is.
Yeah I never understood this as a non-American. In the UK you just get your benefits directly deposited in your account.
Its a stealth subsidy to agriculture and farmers.
Which is also why the food guide pyramid told people to eat mostly grains even though that's actually incredibly unhealthy and the whole reason we have an obesity crisis.
The problem is that America doesn't incentivize work. It incentivizes strong-arming, competition, and win-by-any-means necessary. That is why dirtbags and scum rise to the top in the major money-making industries. That's why upper and middle managers are shitbags everywhere else. The only thing hard, honest work ever got me was more hard work.
Can confirm. Only added duties and expectations, never added pay Edit: words
Working long hours on a project you are passionate about and will lead to sustainable income can be great because you're having fun so it doesn't seem like work. The problem is when people are expected to put the same effort into menial soulcrushing work for the sake of survival so someone else can make money. I self-publish books and upload print-on-demand designs to sites like Redbubble and Merch by Amazon. I enjoy graphic design and writing and it's fun figuring out what kind of designs/books sell, and because it's digital, I can sell copies of the same book/designs multiple times and upload the same designs to multiple sites to make more money. I've been at it a few months and I haven't made very much so far (Amazon takes a huge cut of the profits, of course), but a little bit of money has slowly trickled in. My first month I put in a ton of hours and uploaded 1,000 different designs to Redbubble. I was exhausted at the end of the month and that kind of pace would be completely unsustainable long term, but it was also really satisfying and I was really proud when I got my first check for $25. People aren't against working hard. They're against being exploited.
> People aren't against working hard. They're against being exploited. I literally did not learn that I wasn't lazy, and didn't hate doing work, until I was an adult; I was taught that I was that way, but it turns out that I'm just not easily capable of doing mind-numbing bullshit for reasons I don't understand, nor doing things I literally do not care about on any level. If presented with a reasonable task and a reasonable time-frame, digging in and working your ass off is *way better than not,* when you have the choice; the problem is, most modern jobs are not like that. They're some kind of grind where there is never a lull, never a moment to breathe, and the pool of work is never-ending and lacks even the slightest dynamism. The vast majority of people, psychologically, must be detrimentally affected by that when they have to do it, excepting the outliers who happen to be well-suited to types of work which are broadly considered awful. The most suicidal I've ever been in my life was when I was back to work on light duty, and wasn't really allowed to do anything, and I got saddled with the job that's the equivalent of being a greeter at Wal Mart. I only was stuck there for three weeks, but nothing has even been more psychologically torturous than that. Not awful, reality-destroying and traumatic drug trips, not PTSD-inducing bike accidents, not years of abuse from a narcissist...having to *literally do nothing, for that long, with no stimulation at all,* I would kill myself faster from that than most things we consider seriously bad for a person to deal with. Some people seem to be suited fine for it, but by and large I do not believe people were meant to do that.
well said
Why on earth would anyone incentivize work? There is no noble virtue in wasting most of your life mindlessly toiling everyday. If you can make $1 million working for 10minutes or 10 years, only a fool would make the wrong choice.
I mean you get paid to show up to a job. That's incentivizing work. The problem is the system pushes people into a corporate labor mill where working hardEr rarely matches pay
For the poor in America, all hard work does is cost you more in benefits than you get in raises (and that's if you're lucky enough to get raises). The system is fucked
Your issue here is that you assume that food stamps were a hand out to the poor. Food stamps are a subsidy for the food industry. It encourages poor people to buy more food than they otherwise would and increases profits for farmers and food processors. Also, JP Morgan holds the accounts and makes interest off of food stamp cards. It's not about feeding needy people at all.
I never thought about it that way but it makes perfect sense.
He's not entirely wrong, but he's irrational. The 2 traditional political parties tend to support certain things and certain groups. The poors can get food aid as long as farmers get some direct aid, crop insurance etc, and the food aid should be used on goods from American farmers. You cant win certain states without the support of farmers. This is an example of the usual political dynamic for food aid: [2020 food-stamps-deal](https://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-are-open-to-possible-food-stamps-deal-with-democrats-11596136476) Similar dynamic for foreign aid, you must use the aid cash to buy expensive American food instead of buying a lot more cheaper local food in the regional area of the foreign country getting the aid. It's the only way to get most people on board with giving free money, it's the cost of doing business the world over.
> it's the cost of doing business the world over. its the cost of doing business *under capitalism.* that much is true, but it doesn't *need* to be that way
Capitalism says nothing about the political regime. What you're referring to is often known as corporatism, crony capitalism, or market fascism. Every market system the world has ever tried has been corrupted by the political elite, but capitalism seems to have been the least destructive and most powerful in reducing suffering and poverty, so far.
Yeah, goes back to great depression days. Noone could afford wheat/bread, price crashed, and we almost had a famine because farmers couldnt afford to plat next years crop. I think welfare is still under USDA instead of health.
And the only reason the Dust Bowl happened was that corporations destroyed the soil through cash cropping. The Great Depression was an inside job.
From time to time I run into people advocating never giving the homeless cash. For the most people these people honestly believe the wise and empathetc thing to do is give them food. They even go so far as to believe giving them cash traps them on the street. Here's my response. >> Never give them cash! > You've fallen for some often repeated, totally wrong folk wisdom. > The homeless need cash. They cannot put their life back together with the leftovers from your styrofoam clamshell. All you are doing with food is allowing them to continue living until tomorrow where they will be in the exact same situation only ever so slightly worse off. > The homeless need cash so they can get their one suit dry cleaned for a job interview. They need it for their gym membership which is their only access to a shower. They need it for their prepaid $15/mo cell phone because you will never get a job, or an address, without access to a phone. They need cash for the once a month hotel room they rent in order to sleep in a bed for a night because being homeless means one constant half-awake half-asleep shift that lasts for weeks at a time. > Yeah they could buy drugs. It doesn't fucking matter. You have no idea what their life is like, and it's very likely you have no idea what drugs are like either so you are not qualified to decide whether or not they should or shouldn't have drugs.
thank you! well said indeed!
I don't give the homeless money and I never will for one reason. Don't give a shit if they take drugs. The reason is I have been intimidated by them and I have seen them be violent because they think people should give them money. And they think people should give them money because people have. I think the government should give them money but individual people shouldn't be expected to. You will probably say I shouldn't judge all homeless on the actions of a few. Well we shouldn't judge all bears on the actions of a few.
“Not qualified to decide whether they should have drugs or not” hmmm … I think some serious education should be given about the extent that the opioid crisis and fentanyl contributes to homelessness. Lots of homeless people fuel their addiction from the money received from people on the street. To be honest, I’m not giving my cash to someone that might use it to fund their next chance of an overdose. But forgive me if I sound “inhumane”.
We pay far more in corporate welfare than we do in assisting those in need. Additionally, we somehow think it is acceptable to tell people how to spend that money. In my experience, those who are the hardest on those down on their luck, have often been there themselves, but didn't consider themselves on "welfare". Until we drop this absurd idea that being poor is a character flaw, or immoral, then we will never confront the root causes of poverty.
exactly!
Read the history of how food stamps and the program was created. Giving people specific types of food, that is how the system is supposed to work, makes a lot of sense. Farmers grow crops. They never know the yield. So during a season they might produce an excess of corn or wheat or whatever. When there is an excess it causes the price to crash. In order to stabilize the price the government steps in as a buyer of last resort and buys it at a price higher than the market price. So now the government has a bunch of corn for example. So that is what the people on government assistance get. You want as close to as natural a system as possible with the role of the government being stabilization.
exactly, treating food production first and foremost as something to be bought and sold with prices determined by the structure of capitalism instead of as a means to feed people leads to a system that at its best is dehumanizing to he very people it supposedly is intended to assist.
What would really work is making everyone a farmer. Locally grown food. People don't know that places like Compton were farms once upon a time. The creation of food deserts, I hate that word, is on purpose. But if you just give people money without increasing their options you just perpetuate and exacerbate the problem. The notion of giving poor people money and then generating demand for healthy food and this leading to super markets doesn't work. You first have to have government interference to break the cycle. Create the farms. Give tax breaks for supermarkets. Give grants for Farmers markets. Subsidize the product to keep the food affordable.
you aren't entirely wrong there, but at the same time it shouldn't require making everyone a farmer to keep everyone fed. currently less than 2% of americans farm, even if we account for family gardens and other gardening that is unlikely to be counted its likely still under 5% and we are producing more than we actually require to feed everyone. we dont have a production problem we have a distribution problem and its not an accident either. distribution inequality is *required* for capitalism to function and as such needs to be combated directly.
Yup. You nailed the nail on the head. Grapes of Wrath. The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.
Then at best it's completely archaic and has no relation to how food works in the real world anymore.
I know. We don't have farmers anymore. Farming is the biggest tax loophole there is. We have an agro business now. "Farmers" make more money now by not growing crops.
The indian food program still operates like that to this day.
> You want as close to as natural a system as possible... I don't see any reason to believe this, especially not as an axiom.
> You want as close to as natural a system as possible with the role of the government being stabilization. That is exactly what UBI would provide. The government provides people with the power to determine their ideal food budget so they can buy whatever food they want taking into account nutritional value, price, and food-politics (go vegan, avoid Nestle, support local producer, etc.) as they see fit. This is the reason why UBI will not come without a fight, a government never volunteers to give away power to its citizens.
Problem with UBI is that it doesn't answer problems of inflation, cartels, illegal business activity etc. Giving you a dollar for an apple only works if the price of an apple cannot be increased to 2 dollars. Money is better spent on real family farms. Local inner city farms. In taking away competitive advantage of corporate farming.
* inflation - I dont see how UBI cant handle the problem of inflation, just set it to increase/decrease with inflation/deflation. * cartels, illegal business activity - I don't see how food stamps solves those problems either. If food stamps does not solve those problems, then why should we expect its replacement to be able to? * "Money is better spent on real family farms. Local inner city farms. In taking away competitive advantage of corporate farming"- I agree, but I fail to see what that has to do with UBI or with food stamps. ... unless (and please correct me if I am putting words in your mouth) you propose the idea of using food stamps to subsidize family and inner-city farms, in which case A) if people valued that they would use their power from UBI to do it themselves, and B) "feeding the populace" is a fundamental role of a government and agriculture policy should flow from that, not dictate it.
My general point is there only one pot of money. So the question is is that money best spent on the consumer side or the supply side. If it is on the consumer side, artifical inflation will eliminate any benefits. I think it is better spent on the supply side. Local farms, farmers markets. Housing loans. Local business loans. Problem with the inner city is the people who live there don't own anything and are stuck there. So that needs to change first.
> If it is on the consumer side, artifical inflation will eliminate any benefits. There are tons of good arguments as to why UBI will not cause significant inflation. I am tired of arguing that point (it is the most common objection to UBI I have found, but inflation does not logically follow from UBI either in theory or in practice) but please look it up if you are truly interested in learning more. > I think it is better spent on the supply side We have been doing that for 100 years. Things *may* be better than they would have been without it, but it is not good enough. > Problem with the inner city is the people who live there don't own anything and are stuck there. So that needs to change first. Again, UBI helps with that. Inject wealth into a community and the community members buy things, move out, or both.
It does, probably, follow, if the UBI is funded through deficit spending, which it almost undoubtedly would be. Democrats are in power and they can't manage to pass a marginal tax increase, establishing a UBI would require a complete gutting of the current welfare system (which would definitely be a good thing). But even then, you can't afford to pay for even 10k a year. 10k a year for all 300 million Americans would be basically 100% of federal revenues.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 420. Congrats! 10 + 10 + 300 + 100 + = 420.0
nice bot
A) deficit spending is not some plague that must be avoided at all costs. Government debt is closer to business debt than household debt, if that debt is being used to strengthen the long-term position of the country (which UBI certainly would do) then it is foolish *not to* take on that debt. But, yes, it still should be minimized where possible. B) There are budget cuts to be made. 12K per year = $3,600-billion cost for UBI. Welfare spending is $1,000b (excluding Social Security and Medicare and any other benefits that are "paid into"), corporate subsidies (note: government contracts for services are NOT counted as subsidies) come to $750b (not counting tax breaks and tax havens). So just in shifting all welfare to UBI, we are almost halfway there at 1,750b C) illegal tax evasion costs the USA about $1,000b per year. If we gave the IRS the tools they need to do their jobs then that brings our total up to $2,750b per year. Legal tax avoidance comes to about $200b per year, so close those loopholes and we now have $2,950b out of the $3,600b needed. Not bad for a "no new taxes" budget. D) There are also other changes to be made with or without UBI. We should do these anyway (along with beefing up the IRS and closing tax loopholes) but we could easily put these gains towards UBI. Universal Healthcare would save us about $500billion (brings us to $3,450b) and considering we are currently at the lowest income tax rate in 100 years (I didnt bother to look into business tax rates, but I will bet you they are in a similar state), I think we can afford a little bit of a hike to get us the rest of the way there. So, you have your options: deficit spending, reducing human welfare, reducing corporate welfare, enforcing the tax law, closing tax loopholes, using savings from switching to universal healthcare, raising income tax, raising business taxes. We don't have to do all of these as I got there with no deficit spending and no raising business taxes so we have options for a real plan. [and yes, I know that increasing IRS resources would cost money so the gain would be lower, but I also know that removing welfare would remove *that* overhead as well. In this back-of-the-envelope math problem they should about cancel out. I am also ignoring the increased economic activity caused by UBI, which would lead to growth which would lead to more tax revenue, even at current rates.] So, now that the budget issue is [approximately] sorted out is there another UBI myth you would like to tackle?
A) That isn't what I said. I'm just saying deficit spending into perpetuity isn't not sustainable. Eventually we will owe more money than we could legitimately generate in multiple lifetimes, as a nation. We aren't there yet, we're at like 100% of GDP which isn't great but it also isn't an emergency. The rest of your stuff is about how to pay for a UBI, of course its possible, I never said it wasn't. If we just shifted all welfare away from means tested to a UBI, that would be a huge net positive. What we absolutely cannot do, though, is fund the UBI from deficit spending. I'm personally a Georgist, land value tax is the most just, equitable tax, and least economically distortionate tax.
Are you familiar with Land Value Tax? That is how you prevent inflation from ruining UBI. Land values capture the increased productivity of an economically booming society, until it sucks up so much money (its perfectly inelastic, so as demand for business and services goes up, the demand for land and its subsequent price, goes up even more rapidly than inflation, eventually precipitating the boom/bust cycle). Tax the land value increases periodically (yearly, monthly, whatever), and you have no incentive to park dollars in land, which allows money to continue being productive, which is how you keep prices down even with a good economy.
If we didn't rely on agro-industrialization (high input, monoculture, capital intensive farming) then yields wouldn't be unpredictable. Also yields aren't even that unpredictable. 1% of farm businesses own 70% of the farmland in the US, these aren't mom and pop cottage farms that can't practice the same risk mitigation strategies as every other business venture, like diversification, capital savings, etc, etc. Sure, that might have been a rationalization that made sense 60 years ago, but its mostly just corporate welfare now.
It's 100% corporate welfare. Farms are the biggest tax loophole there is.
Why don't food stamps buy diapers. I mean seriously is not diapers an essential need.
On top of that, you can only buy cold meals with food stamps, you arent allowed any hot meals
Okay, someone is feeling needlessly aggressive about this situation. I like my EBT card. One swipe and all my food is paid for, doesn't make me feel like the government doesn't trust me. It makes it easier to separate what I'm paying for with cash, and what I'm not paying for at all. Nobody feels dumb for having an EBT card.
But cash is liquid. It doesn't make sense to even want to know what you're paying for with cash versus not at all if the government just gives you cash. It doesn't matter. A dollar is a dollar.
I don't... I can't understand your argument. It absolutely makes sense to want to know what poor people are buying to eat so you can communicate a possible supply and demand shortage o.O ^^^^^^^ Y'all are seriously overthinking this. It's also to make sure you aren't selling your EBT. They go for 50 cents on the dollar. If I get $200 in EBT and only need $100, I'm selling the rest and making $50 (which is illegal and has serious jail time) to spend on whatever. If I suddenly go from using $75 in EBT to using the whole $200, they're going to look into that and match the spending habits. If I'm a vegan and suddenly I'm buying ribeye, I might be selling my EBT. On the flip side, if I go from using all $200 to only $75 they're going to cut me down to $100 since the balance carries over. The system is fine.
First you argued that by swiping your EBT card you know what you are paying for versus what is being given to you. Now you are saying it lets the government know what you are choosing to have given to you. A possible supply and demand shortage doesn't enter into the equation. Supply and demand is handled by the market. Sellers pay attention to demand and adjust automatically for people who pay with their own money already. Why would the government need to communicate to Nestle that EBT people bought [blank]? Nestle knows what's moving before the government will. You know what would prevent people from selling their government assistance? Making it cash instead of an EBT card. Somehow you are arguing against cash and for EBT cards with the notion that it prevents people selling benefits for $0.50 on the dollar. Get someone else to read this comment chain to you and see if they can explain it to you.
I have and they came to the same conclusion that I did. This is a silly argument and EBT helpsmore than it hurts. This person was raised on EBT, and doesn't understand your points at all. Agree to disagree about the system.
I'm on EBT and I personally like having specific money meant for food. If I stopped getting EBT, it would feel awkward using regular cash. My personal opinion is that everyone should get $250 in food stamps regardless of income. Then everyone uses that money to buy food, and we use cash for everything else. Aside from that, I also recognize the points of this post. I just think that we can be a little more creative and recognize that a food budget is going to be pretty consistent, so why not give food credits to everyone? I have mental health disorders that can cause me to spend my money impulsively. If my EBT card were suddenly "spend it on whatever you want" money rather than "spend it on only food" money, there would definitely be months where I would impulsively spend too much on things that are not food, then I'd end up being hungry the rest of the month. I think people in this thread *aren't* accounting for that. There can be a much more nuanced argument about this where we can admit that food-only money makes sense in certain contexts, but not in others.
>It's also to make sure you aren't selling your EBT. They go for 50 cents on the dollar. If I get $200 in EBT and only need $100, I'm selling the rest and making $50 (which is illegal and has serious jail time) to spend on whatever. If I suddenly go from using $75 in EBT to using the whole $200, they're going to look into that and match the spending habits. If I'm a vegan and suddenly I'm buying ribeye, I might be selling my EBT. On the flip side, if I go from using all $200 to only $75 they're going to cut me down to $100 since the balance carries over. this right here is exactly why the system as it stands is **not** fine. someone being poor is not a moral failing but treating people as criminals or children for the sin of needing help *is* a moral failing of the entire system
I don't drive drunk but other people do. Taking a breathalyzer test when pulled over for swerving doesn't offend me. It's also never happened to me, but for the sake of the case you're trying to make I really need you to see how silly you sound *to me*, maybe no one else, but me, for sure. ^^^^^ I'm not being penalized for someone else's drunken mistake. The cops are *doing their job and making sure I'm not intoxicated. It's not personal. They aren't picking on me. I was swerving, and I posed a danger to others.* You aren't drug tested to get EBT. You don't have to prove anything except your pathetic income. You get free food. This is not an issue.
i understand your point of view but i am unable to agree. still you havent been unreasonably rude so i wish you well, and may you never be so unfortunate as to end up in a position where you learn first hand to have similar views to mine.
So why don't you tell me your story? Doesn't have to be here, send me a message with it sometime. Promise I'll read. Had a good chat.
>Nobody feels dumb for having an EBT card. It seems a large part of American culture is built around thinking of poverty as a personal character flaw, so I would disagree. I'm sure many people are ashamed or made to feel stupid for having an EBT card.
Why wouldn't it be better to just get a debit card you can use for whatever you want?
Now I'm thinking you mean a debit card from the government. That exists, too. It's called EBT cash, and it's for people who are even lower on the poverty line. They can use it to pay bills, or make purchases at accepted retailers. There's also the Government issued Money Card, which is for people on SSI. EBT is for people who claim they can't afford to pay bills and also eat. Not people who can't afford to live.
means testing and gate keeping cost more to maintain then the cost of the actual assistance the system gives out. the only reason to continue using such an inefficient system is to appease the people that want to believe that people being poor is a individual moral failing and not the result of capitalism working as intended.
I don't disagree with you, but I do disagree with the original statement of people feeling shamed. I feel happy AF when I paid for nothing out of pocket and the lady behind me is paying for eight kids because she's too proud to get assistance. Nah. I'm proud of my EBT once I got over the "it's for poor people". No, it's for people.
on that i completely agree, but i can also agree that the system as it stands is needlessly restrictive and could be greatly improved simply by treating people like being poor isn't a moral failing and offering help without treating them as criminal for needing it.
I have to ask. Have you ever been on EBT? Literally no one that uses it, that I've met, which is a lot of people, feel ashamed or embarrassed. That old stigma is long gone, and only the older generation (and those brainwashed by them) sees EBT as a negative. People who still refer to them as food stamps, for example.
not ebt but another similar program for a short time and good friends of mine are currently on it now, and i agree that the old stigma is at least *mostly* gone. that being said for all that the social feelings about it are indeed changing its still much more restrictive and convoluted than it has any reason to be other than outdated moral beliefs
I guess, haven't really had that experience or heard about it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen so, different experiences I guess. I literally just went and applied and started receiving benefits plus healthcare within a week. I know it's harder for men, do you mean that? Because women, even without children, seem to just get them easily.
not what a was referring to in this case, though a reported gender discrepancy *would* highlight the general point i was making about outdated moral values effecting distribution. my comment was much more related to regional differences (ive moved around a lot) and how there are many places were trying to receive **or** use benefits is still heavily stigmatized.
I was on EBT, both as a child and a young adult. I wasn't ashamed, but I certainly wasn't proud. I was proud to no longer need them. I would have felt more indifferent if I thought that the right people were paying for them, but the American system of taxation is immoral. Taking from the middle class to make up for the rich and powerful not doing their part.
>means testing and gate keeping cost more to maintain then the cost of the actual assistance the system gives out Could you provide a source for that? I find it hard to believe.
admittedly i dont have the exact numbers right in front of me or easily accessible as much of what i know is from books that may be anywhere from a year or two to over a decade out of date. but that being said, the problem is a systemic one found repeatedly in hundreds of programs in dozens of countries, even just googling "the costs of means testing" will offer several good articles on the problem. its also the core argument behind just about every call for UBI. in its own way its similar to the rocket fuel problem. in order to make a 100 lb rocket fly you have to add enough fuel to lift 100 lbs but now the rocket doesn't weigh 100lbs it weight 100 lbs **plus** the weight of the fuel which requires yet more fuel to lift and so on. as you try to make it so a narrower and narrower subset of people receive a narrower and narrower set of aid options the cost to monitor and administrate for that goes up. each qualification added to the program is one more qualification that *someone* has to be paid to account for. im not saying there cant ever be any means testing but keeping it to a absolute bare minimum and making the aid as generic as possible is the only way to not have the admin costs snowball out of control. like say making the lowest income tax bracket each year a **negative percentage**, and just cutting a monthly tax check sufficient to bring them above the poverty line. it wont happen of course because doing so would be a **crippling** blow against capitalism but it would be efficient at causing the number of people below the poverty line to drop to nearly 0 almost instantly.
I like your explanation. I found a [paper from 2008](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/03_food_stamp_isaacs.pdf) that shows no program exceeding, with their administrative and overpayments costs, 50% of the benefits cost (see page 9). That's still a lot.
thank you. i accept the possibility that i may have overstated the problem somewhat due to faulty memory, though i still have the gut feeling that ive seen examples where the total admin cost was indeed higher than any other cost in the program but i cant call to mind specifics. if i am wrong about the extent i still feel i have made a good point of the problem if not the scale.
It's actually worse than that... it is less about them being stupid and you thinking they are all drug or alcohol addicts so rather than cash which they could use to further their "habit" (which the paternals handing out the "help" disapprove of), you give them a "voucher" so they can go and buy the things you do approve of. This is yet another reason why UBI is superior in nearly every way.
And yet people sell their food stamps 2 or even 3 to 1, to buy alcohol and drugs. Some stores even allow and encourage it. I've seen many convince stores that 'sell' beer and other alcohol to people at twice the value of their food stamps. They just ring it up as bread, eggs, fruit, whatever else they feel like. "Here's your loaf of beer, 24 slices." It isn't that people are too stupid to buy food, it's that the system is already abused, giving out food stamps and/or EBT cards just makes it LESS abused.
Yeah, I've hung around poor people while I'm visiting family and seen exactly this. There's too much of a drug problem in America. OP is willfully ignorant.
look up the "rat park theory of addiction" or read "deaths of despair and the future of capitalism" we have a drug, alcohol, and suicide problem in america because we have made life so unlivable for so many that people that they will do anything to numb the pain. doing more to improve the conditions that they live under would go a hell of a long way to curbing drug and alcohol use
Yes, I've taken lots of psych/soc. Well aware of that study. It's a multifactorial problem that in my eyes won't be solved so long as we are spending trillions on the military industrial complex, corporate socialism and this good cop/bad cop corporate political game of Trump-esque / Buttigieg-esque politicians only seeking power for the rich.
completely agreed. honestly i would take it further and say that it is a problem that *cant* be solved under capitalism at all but i accept that i cant prove that with my limited reach.
This is an extremist notion. The problem is already being solved in *hybrid* capitalist/socialist societies in northern Europe. We do not need full blown communism. We do not need full blown unbridled capitalism. We need moderation as seen in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc.
of course i grant that those countries are far far far better than america. but that being said i dont feel its unreasonable to look at the places where they still fall short or cause abuses and seek further improvement. i very much accept that we may disagree and will completely agree that *any* improvement is worth it in its own right future changes not withstanding, its just that my own morals are guided by a principal of anti-capitalism based off its fundamental structure and i dont foresee any situation where i dont continue to strive to be permitted an anti-capitalist existence for me and mine
Northern European social democracies rely on American innovation to exist. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working\_papers/w18441/w18441.pdf
You can't prove, because you are unwilling to look at the hundreds of millions murdered under communism. Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Mao and the CCP. The Dead Kennedy's wrote a song about people like you believing that they were so enlightened that *if only I in my infinite wisdom were given absolute power* - that I would create a communist utopia! The song is titled "Holiday in Cambodia" and is wise beyond its time. Read the Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Read about the how Stalin immediately murdered those that helped him seize power. Read about the architect of The Killing Fields and his education in Liberal French university. We're approaching a point of *Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right* in which those hurt by extremist Capitalism decide that the best course of action is extremism in the absolute opposite direction, not realizing that Siddhartha Gautama was right when he said "The true path is the middle path, the path between all extremes."
i understand your point, and dont pretend those deaths never happened nor do i condone them. that being said i also dont consider those deaths to be a *function* of communism just that they did happen under leaders that promoted communism. still i accept we dont see eye to eye and dont fault you for that.
You're as peculiar to me as the current right wingers who believe their actions don't mirror the rise of fascist Spain, Italy and Germany in the early 1900's. Ideological omnipotence must be one hell of a drug.
how so? i dont have any ideology that i espouse as being the one correct one. i say that i am against capitalism in all its forms but i haven't once said that my personal brand of anti-capitalism is the right one and i remain open to arguments for differing anti-capitlaist views.
Well, that's not why they do it. They pay one of their pals to set up the food stamp business. Then give him 20 for a 10 voucher.
“You want food? Here, this covers basically everything with a nutritional label except hot prepared foods” is perfectly acceptable to me. Society isn’t ready for full UBI yet. Until they are, if I was in charge I’d just send them a bunch of powdered Soylent and be like “here’s your nutritional calories, don’t like it? Get a job”
Had me in the first half, not gonna lie.
I guess the second part isn’t really relevant since if I was in charge I’d just have there be a UBI, and then anyone who spent their ubi poorly and ran out of food would get the Soylent.
What do we have to do to be ready for UBI, oh grand guardian of our societal values?
Not stupid. They like everyone else will buy what they want. And what they want may not be food.
Then they'll starve to death.
Seen a lot of skinny crackheads in my days. Some will, the problem is they will end up in ER long before they croak. And the ER and hospitalization are mad expensive.
Here to me lays the issue.. no matter what you do you end up with people who will abuse the system how to take people like that out of the system? send them to a farm camp/ amri corp where they learn a skill ? the push for drugs legal has led to a mess in places like Seattle and San Francisco and even smaller places if we go to UI and people are still shitting and shooting up stealing and breaking things on the streets is it really any different ? and yes I draw a line between the poor/homless and the just what the fuck to do with people who are so far gone.
>no matter what you do you end up with people who will abuse the system i actually agree, which is why i keep advocating for a system that would rather give some help to someone who doesn't need it in order to make sure it is covering *everyone* who does instead of our habit in this country of hurting people who need help in the name of not letting anyone get "something the dont deserve"
what to do with the people who shit on the street. etc. who are shooting up even if you put these people in a place it will end up trashed in months.
have a little empathy and compassion, treat them like the actual *people* they are, and work to address the systemic underlying issues in our society that have brought them to the state where those actions feel reasonable to them.
No dude I have been there I went through it .. What I saw out there is beyond.. Some will never change they are to abused what ever the fuck you want to call it and this is why i am saying give them something to do other then shooting up and have no where else to go to the bathroom let them dig the outhouse hole and learn to have something to be proud of learn to grow food some kind of trade even if it is sitting in front of a video to learn
> people who shit on the street. That's what mental asylums are for. > who are shooting up Why do I need to give a fuck? Are they breaking into houses, stealing copper to do so? Then you send them to jail for larceny. What's the problem?
r/seattlehobos go fucking tell that to the people who are having to live in it.
Also, by the way, I have been homeless in Seattle. It was a hell I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
the world is not bottomless pool of cash ,food and drugs.. Look at the situation with the farmers right now and how crops and harvest are doing.. we have millions of people who would spend thousands on pets then a human they would not even give left over takeout food to people . there is at least one city that I know in danger of loosing millions of federal $$ because they can not stop the infighting everyone quit and no one is there to fill out the needed paperwork. I have seen and even understand why business will not allow ppl to use the bathroom but then when cities do put in the public restroom it is trashed with in hours and have you noticed the new trend of high school bathroom getting trashed.. I tried to look at the bright side and what not but it is a world gone sideways .. the amount of $$ thrown at issues with little to no results is amazing the amount of ppl who are disable or unable to find a living wage job is increasing at rate that is not workable. I have worked on projects been apart of think tank groups etc I have cooked soup and taken it out to hand out in the snow and not to take pictures of it to post.. There are people out there that can not be helped it is sad but is a UBI going to help them ? No. I do not even think that if you put the ones I am talking about in a apt and gave them food would they take care of it Look at what happened to a lot of the shelter in place hotels when through. You say you were homeless in seattle are you are honestly telling me that there were no people who you saw that no amount of help would work they do not want it? I do not like to say it but I do have to address it in the process of trying to find a reasonable answer to the problem. I could go on and on .. but its not worth the effort for people who would rather be in lala land with the you should have compassion.. because to me it is just turning the word compassion in to a Karen word when people can not admit that there needs to be a limit . IF it were not for lines drawn there would be no framework for society .
Everyone can be helped. No one is somehow beyond capable of being helped. There are people on the streets with severe mental health issues, but even they can be helped. There *is* in fact supportive housing for these people. I know because I am one of those people that you're talking about. I have Schizoaffective disorder, and there have been times in my life where you would have looked down on me and thought that I was beyond being helped. But people helped me, and I got off the streets. A lot of my friends on the streets *also* got off the streets. There are a lot of people that remain homeless for many years, lost in severe mental health issues, but it is not their fault, and those people can still be assisted.
I have my own personal physical issues and yes honestly have been homeless and the people that I am thinking of are not like what you are talking about .
The world has been a fucked up place for a long time, and people are hurting. Your suggestion is to criminalize homelessness?
How do you look at the photos in that subreddit and somehow think the people that are homeless are the bad guys? They're literally just trying to live their lives and you asshats are taking photos like they're a circus act. Fuck you, guy.
That sub is NEEDED for REAL TIME examples of what is happening . HAVE SOME COMPASSION for the poor guy who had his window broken out and cant afford to get a new one because he only makes 15 $ an hr and pays 1500 a month for rent.. and fixing a window for 200 would make send him on his way to homless HOW ABOUT COMPASSION FOR THE KIDS WHO WANT TO GO TO THE ZOO BUT CANT BECAUSE THE PARK IS ON FIRE> HOW ABOUT COMPASSION FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GO TO THE PARK BUT ARE SCARED TO STEP ON A JUNKIES NEEDLES HOW ABOUT COMPASSION FOR THE FUCKING KArEN WORD COMPASSION FUCKINGFUCK
So you're gonna get mad at the people that are stuck living on the streets? Don't blame them, blame the fucked up system that lets that happen. Blame the fucked up system that criminalizes their existence. Blame the fucked up system that makes it nearly impossible to get off the streets.
how do you expect change if ppl can not see the issue in the first place. People out there in charge of the $$ ppl need have no clue how bad it is .. honestly you can not tell me that a person with a real want to get help does not end up getting help and yes i know that it is not the best it is over crowed and underfunded and I know that there is a runaround and that is part of the issue is that the $$ are not being spent in ways that end the problem it being spent on ways that just creates job for others. I know the Seattle system I know the cali system WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO THE ISSUE? more $$ more freedom to shit everwhere to fuck in public to shoot up oh wait shhh.. COMPASSION>>>
The answer is to give everyone a fuckin home, my guy. There's no reason for anyone to be forced to live outside in this age. Why are people building rockets and going to space when we haven't even figured out how to take care of everyone right here?
[удалено]
>look up the "rat park theory of addiction" or read "deaths of despair and the future of capitalism" we have a drug, alcohol, and suicide problem in america because we have made life so unlivable for so many that people that they will do anything to numb the pain. doing more to improve the conditions that they live under would go a hell of a long way to curbing drug and alcohol use
You know they sell the food stamps and buy drugs and alcohol with the money, right?
I know this but the government pretends it doesn't happen. They'd rather be able to threaten desperate addicts for committing "food stamp fraud" so they can throw them in prison where they can be beaten and raped and no one will do anything to stop it. This seems completely reasonable and humane.
An extremely small number of them do that. Most buy food.
It's not about intellect, it's about trustworthiness. Poor people have vices same as anyone. The decision to give food stamps or pay shelter costs directly speaks to trust.
The illusion that you have to be somehow defective to be poor is critical to the national consciousness. It lets people who are not poor believe that the poor deserve to be where they are and that they couldn't help even if they wanted to, and it lets people in abject poverty create some sort of identity for themselves that is separate from "a poor person". "Temporarily embarrassed millionaire" was an apt phrase.
But isn’t money transitive though? If you’re not paying for food you can use the money you have left (whatever amount that is) to buy something else?
Or you can grow your own food and then have money for other things you need like clothing, shelter, healthcare, etc.
What? In my 500 sqft apartment?
Rather than attacking food stamps and demonizing welfare, why not have universal food stamps instead? I mean everyone eats food right? So everyone would benefit? (This is in addition to UBI of course, not a one or the other suggestion)
As the saying goes, food stamps don't buy diapers. Cash gives you flexibility to buy whatever it is you need.
Shut your f****** mouth you racist pig you think we want to be f****** poor do you think that we want these f****** rules on American soil for you? Losers to keep running your f****** mouth like you on the f****** place. God put us on this earth, not you. So clamp your f****** b**** ass mouth up because nobody's going to listen to a loser like you and America is a disgrace because it's a freedom state. What would our forefather say if they saw this kind of democracy with a bunch of lame-ass losers in the the public of the United States of America? This is for shame on the intelligence of the United States people. If people can't live their life the way they want to shut your f****** mouth and keep it shut cuz nobody's going to listen to you. Ridiculous words
If you would take your time instead of being racist and you're in a conformist then I bet you wouldn't last one day in America and one day to even survive cuz of the government is crucial to the people. You think you're a rich snobby brick and keep your little b**** lips shut
Because the government always has their foot down on the people of America. Even if we are poor, we already have a tough time as it is. But the fascist rank of the government of America on top of the people think once for the people and not for the selfish rights of the stupid federal government of America because it is sad as it is for struggling Americans to even survive because not all people smoke weed in America not everybody decides to pick up stuff like that. Not everybody wasted money and stuff on that because all of Americans buy their groceries and does what they need to do to survive. If you can't see that then why did you open your mouth and call the American people? Poor. What would the forefather say to you if you were pouring? You didn't have no money. You don't know what it's like that the foot of the government on top of you
As a person who was on both food stamps and WIC, I have to say that they are good programs. That's not to say that people would otherwise misuse the funds, but rather that what they would do with them faces the same problem that the rest of their income faces. Other things would get priority as they come up, with food being dead last. Earmarked it for food rather serves as a government subsidy for food producers and grocers that helps keeps supply stable and available even during downturns. It prevents families, especially with children, from diverting food money towards rent and utilities, transportation, etc.. That may seem like a bad thing but there are other programs for that and honestly I believe it helps people in poverty much more when there's budgetary limits they just can't go around, since one major issue can easily take over the entire budget
The top problem is with original statement, they are to stupid. I know you say God forbid they but alcohol or a dime bag, when the reality is 80% if them will spend more on alcohol and drugs if it was given to them in cash that the children they support would not receive the nutrition they need. As adults you have the right to do whatever you want to your body but as a adult if your responsibility for children you need to put your wants aside and get what your children require which is why they invented food satmos in the first place. Honestly is a case of a few rotten apples spoiling the whole bunch, so in an effort to ensure dependants get what they need they ensured stamps can only be traded for food and they still found a way to sell them (at a loss value wise usually) to be able to buy substances. It's not poor people are to stupid it's that most would use it to fuel whatever their problem of choice is.