Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-17-2018, 12:07 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 12,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
"Bla bla bootstraps bla bla work ethic bla bla incentives bla bla blaty bla."

Same bullshit, different day.
It's especially impressive, coming from a fat orange shitgibbon who never earned a goddamn thing for himself.
  #102  
Old 02-17-2018, 03:09 PM
Corry El Corry El is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by friedo View Post
This kinda paternalistic nonsense is why I'm in favor of replacing federal welfare programs with a large expansion of EITC. (Call it universal income or negative income tax or whatever if you please.) The amount saved over administering these asinine and complex programs would make up for the expense of just letting poor people manage their own damn lives with a little bit of help.
This is the original conservative idea about 'welfare', conservatives in the mold of Milton Friedman who coined 'negative income tax'.

Many things nowadays are more about the culture war for its own sake than either the Democrats nor GOP really sticking to what used to be known as 'liberal' and 'conservative' positions. In this case an at least nominally GOP president. (Supposedly) economizing on benefits by a method like this is populist not conservative. Conservatism is supposed to be based on thinking things through in terms of humanity as it exists not as one would like it to be. So, you'd first think through whether this really would be more efficient (transport, weight, so perhaps having to set up distributional channel duplicating private sector's; food types that might further increase govt-funded medical costs, etc). You wouldn't do it at a greater cost in order to make aid recipients less well off. Although you wouldn't not do it just because, as a side effect, it makes aid recipients feel less than proud. The culture divide has reached the point of some left-populist emotionalism seemingly (to me) saying people should be outright proud to be dependent on the govt. And lots of unreasonable stuff now is defended by the more reasonable left/right by 'well the seeds of this were sown by the other side's excesses'.

Back to EITC/negative income tax (which is a little different than UBI which would be unconditional, well off people would get it too in pure form*). It's based on the idea, 'do what you want with it' and that's better if it's more efficient. But the efficiency would be from reducing bureaucracy administering other more complicated subsidy schemes. That's never happened. The political fact is a lot of people do care the details about what aid recipients do with aid, not limited to rightist populists (a significant element of the Democratic base is govt workers, who only naturally don't prioritize finding ways to do things with fewer govt workers).

*and completely support people so completely unaffordable, one of the most ridiculous ideas IMO to be taken at all seriously. Making the welfare state more about direct means tested transfer payments, and cutting more complicated and duplicative poverty programs accordingly, might be politically unlikely but is sounder fundamentally IMO.

Last edited by Corry El; 02-17-2018 at 03:14 PM.
  #103  
Old 02-18-2018, 08:13 AM
Zakalwe Zakalwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
a significant element of the Democratic base is govt workers, who only naturally don't prioritize finding ways to do things with fewer govt workers
I'd like to address this little tidbit. You're wrong.

The issue is that government workers are not incented to find ways to do more with fewer government workers. If they would take a government unit and say, "Look here's the deal, you guys figure out how to cut staff and keep the quality and we'll give you half of the saved direct salary costs as raises, we keep the other half as cost savings/capital improvement funds", those folks would quickly figure out how to shed the dead weight. They don't like working with lazy idiots any more than you like paying lazy idiots.

However, I have yet to see this plan be offered by either party. Instead, the Dems think everything's hunky dory (or pass 'across the board' raises that reward the lazy idiots equally with the hard workers), while the Pubs cut a bunch of staff with no incentive to the remaining workers (some of whom leave to go where they're better appreciated), then scream that government is broken when the shit inevitably hits the fan.
  #104  
Old 02-19-2018, 11:55 PM
Crazy Canuck Crazy Canuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
First, I use quotations to highlight words, I wasn't under the impression that many cared for such trivial and petty nonsense.
The rules of grammar and punctuation are not trivial or petty nonsense in a medium (like a message board) where all we have to judge each other on are our words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
I have nothing against the poor or those who are not decent off, I was explaining that there are some that do not efficiently use their assistance. Don't give me any of that "its not of my business" crap like some others have, it is an opinion of my own and you don't have to like it. I don't care if you do.
Fuck your paternalistic classist bullshit. We both know that in no way, shape, or form could it be cheaper to ship individual servings of foods to millions of people than to send them plastic cards and piggybacking on the whole grocery industry who are already shipping all the food required already. Your point there about "some that do not efficiently use their assistance" clearly shows that you think you know better. Fuck that idea, and fuck that idea hard. I firmly believe the actual people receiving that assistance are in the best place to decide what they use that money for. So you can take your "I know what's better for poor people than actual poor people" attitude and shove it right up your ass.

Also, to be clear, if I thought everyone with a different opinion than mine was a shit person that would be damn near the entire board. Lots of people have different opinions, it's what makes the world interesting. Your opinions just suck. So please take your persecution complex and also shove it firmly up your ass. You might need to wiggle your hips to fit it up there with your "I know what's better for poor people than actual poor people" attitude, but I have confidence in your eventual success.
  #105  
Old 02-20-2018, 07:11 AM
SanVito SanVito is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushgeekgirl View Post
So fucking what if I buy soda and cookies with my 257 dollar allotment? I make lunches for three people in this house and every single one of us WORKS and take our lunches. My daughter takes 2 liters and keeps them in the fridge. None of us can drink milk. I drink water most of the time but for lunch I like a caffeine kick. I get all that stuff at Aldi because it's the cheapest place for lunch stuff. I get the bulk of my allotment at Kroger, including bags of frozen vegetables, meats, and cheese. I don't buy box food because I have allergies. I have an autistic daughter with a limited diet. Yeah she gets junk. She also eats spinach and egg almost every night because that's what she doesn't turn away. It's really none of anyone's business WHAT we eat with that food stamp allotment. It's FOOD. Do you not realize how expensive fresh fruit and vegetables are? I get five bananas every week for my child. She won't eat anything else and I can't afford anything else. It's such bullshit, knowing that some twat is looking over my shopping cart and sniffing out my cupcakes, grieving over their precious tax dollars wasted on subsidizing my gross malnourishment and clear nutritional neglect of my child when I say "EBT food" at the register.

And oh LORD everyone seems to know someone who works under the table for food stamps. And yet I have to report every penny I earn. When my daughter got a quarter an hour raise our allotment went down 20 dollars for the month. The food stamp program has the lowest incidence of fraud of all government programs. And yet today all I saw all bloody day was Republicans celebrating, claiming they all "know someone" who commits fraud. Well do you fuckin report it? Because it's FRAUD. Report it and they'll investigate. I would dearly LOVE IT if every one of you people claiming to "know someone" would go ahead and report people instead of citing it as a valid reason to force people to eat from commodity boxes like we did in the good ol' days, back when America was great the first time.
Well said.

And can I throw in a potentially controversial opinion? WTF is with food stamps in the first place? Isn't being poor hard enough that you also have to get humiliated at the til, judged for every item in your basket? It's so bloody Victorian, why don't you just throw everyone in a workhouse and serve them gruel.

Pah, Land of the Free, my arse.
  #106  
Old 02-20-2018, 08:02 AM
anomalous1 anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
I recognize your opinion and support your right to have it even as I disagree with it.


OK, but some of us have the opinion that perfect efficiency is unattainable and you (general) don't always know what's best for someone else. We also may have different ideas of "efficient" and what's the best way to help the poor.


I'm NOT the person who called you shitty, just to clarify, but I think you do look down on the poor. We both agree that this plan as laid out is the wrong way to execute the stated intentions. Where we disagree is that I think it's a bad idea all around, or at least not as good an idea as our current system of aid distribution for food. That is because the government as far back as the Great Depression did, in fact, distribute actual foods to the poor and we stopped doing that because depositing money into a virtual account and letting the poor do their own shopping is a cheaper program to run and thus more of the allotted budget goes to food rather than administrative or logistical costs, and it's harder to divert stuff out of the program. That, along with the "estimates" of costs being bogus, is the main reason why I object to this plan - we used to do this and stopped because it wasn't as efficient as our current system. We've tried this already and found it wanting.
I recognize your opinion as well, and respect and value your right to disagree with mine.

That was a really well thought out and lucid perspective on this. I appreciate you presenting that and without insult. It is a perspective that I am definitely considering now. The example above about the overhead and administration, and your elaboration on it, makes a lot of sense. I suppose others were trying to explain it but without a comparison point (as you stated with the Great Depression) which left me unconvinced otherwise. I have thought about the costs before, and earlier I was trying to state that on the surface the plan may be good, but wasn't presented with a proper counterexample and comparison point as you have presented, and I wasn't aware of their being an actual estimate on the program, so I have been informed. I appreciate the input on the matter as well as your polite demeanor and candidness on it as well.

I do want to add though, as much as some may not believe it, my family has used assistance in the past and I do not look down upon the poor. I think my view on it may be skewed due to the fact that I knew my family used it responsibly and I have witnessed a lot of those who abused it (continued using assistance when it was not needed/masking income/money, lying about dependents/dependency situations etc.) and was comparing it to that. I believe my mental picture of some of those types who did such things have skewed my opinion, but I also know that of course, not all of those struggling are the same.

I know it's a bad idea to look for respectful discourse like this/yours in The Pit (as to be expected) but it is refreshing to see. Thank you.

Last edited by anomalous1; 02-20-2018 at 08:03 AM.
  #107  
Old 02-20-2018, 08:05 AM
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Canuck View Post
The rules of grammar and punctuation are not trivial or petty nonsense in a medium (like a message board) where all we have to judge each other on are our words.


Fuck your paternalistic classist bullshit. We both know that in no way, shape, or form could it be cheaper to ship individual servings of foods to millions of people than to send them plastic cards and piggybacking on the whole grocery industry who are already shipping all the food required already.
It might very well be. Because I’m pretty sure their intent is to take away half of the monthly grocery subsidy and replace it with a quart of milk, a box of cereal, a bag of beans, a bag of rice, a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter.

Because they keep comparing this box to a Blue Apron box. Which contains ONE MEAL’S worth of food. If they are going to box up two weeks worth of groceries that would be a freaking BIG box. So unwieldy that it would negate the whole idea.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 02-20-2018 at 08:06 AM.
  #108  
Old 02-20-2018, 08:10 AM
anomalous1 anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Canuck View Post
The rules of grammar and punctuation are not trivial or petty nonsense in a medium (like a message board) where all we have to judge each other on are our words.


Fuck your paternalistic classist bullshit. We both know that in no way, shape, or form could it be cheaper to ship individual servings of foods to millions of people than to send them plastic cards and piggybacking on the whole grocery industry who are already shipping all the food required already. Your point there about "some that do not efficiently use their assistance" clearly shows that you think you know better. Fuck that idea, and fuck that idea hard. I firmly believe the actual people receiving that assistance are in the best place to decide what they use that money for. So you can take your "I know what's better for poor people than actual poor people" attitude and shove it right up your ass.

Also, to be clear, if I thought everyone with a different opinion than mine was a shit person that would be damn near the entire board. Lots of people have different opinions, it's what makes the world interesting. Your opinions just suck. So please take your persecution complex and also shove it firmly up your ass. You might need to wiggle your hips to fit it up there with your "I know what's better for poor people than actual poor people" attitude, but I have confidence in your eventual success.
That is your opinion. As you said, it is what makes the world interesting. I may not like your opinion on me, but it is definitely your right to have it, even if it sucks.

[/heateddebate]
  #109  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:06 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
It might very well be. Because Iím pretty sure their intent is to take away half of the monthly grocery subsidy and replace it with a quart of milk, a box of cereal, a bag of beans, a bag of rice, a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter.

Because they keep comparing this box to a Blue Apron box. Which contains ONE MEALíS worth of food. If they are going to box up two weeks worth of groceries that would be a freaking BIG box. So unwieldy that it would negate the whole idea.
They also keep comparing it to blue apron, which is not "shelf stable, non-perishables", but actually contains meats and produce.

Not that they aren't bullshitting all around about it anyway, but they need to make up their mind as to whether it is something "like Blue Apron", which is their claim, or something utterly unlike anything that a respectable company would ask people to pay money for.
  #110  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:30 AM
enipla enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 12,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
They also keep comparing it to blue apron, which is not "shelf stable, non-perishables", but actually contains meats and produce.

Not that they aren't bullshitting all around about it anyway, but they need to make up their mind as to whether it is something "like Blue Apron", which is their claim, or something utterly unlike anything that a respectable company would ask people to pay money for.
And it's quite stunning that people didn't/and some still don't consider the cost of administration and shipping. That was my very first thought. They see the back of the napkin number of 129 billion saved (that's over 10 years) and do zero critical thinking about it. What we need to do is pour money into education.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #111  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:43 AM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 58,934
What people don't seem to realise is the boon this will be to drug dealers. Let's say that a monthly box of food would cost $200 at your local supermarket. Pay the drug user (because they're all drug users, amiright? ) $40 for his or her box of food, which he or she uses to buy alcohol and crack. Consume the food yourself for a $160/month saving. If you don't like beans and pasta and rice and such, you can donate the supplies to a food bank and claim a $2,400/year charitable contribution. The druggie gets cash for alcohol and drugs. The drug dealer gets money for his product. The liquor store owner gets paid. You get cheap food and/or a tax deduction. And the druggie still gets to eat because he or she just goes to the food bank where you donated the food. Please, wont somebody think of the independent pharmaceutical marketing professionals?

__________________
'Never say "no" to adventure. Always say "yes". Otherwise you'll lead a very dull life.' -- Commander Caractacus Pott, R.N. (Retired)

'Do not act incautiously when confronting a little bald wrinkly smiling man.' -- Lu-Tze
  #112  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:51 AM
Chetumal Chetumal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
It might very well be. Because I’m pretty sure their intent is to take away half of the monthly grocery subsidy and replace it with a quart of milk, a box of cereal, a bag of beans, a bag of rice, a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter.

Because they keep comparing this box to a Blue Apron box. Which contains ONE MEAL’S worth of food. If they are going to box up two weeks worth of groceries that would be a freaking BIG box. So unwieldy that it would negate the whole idea.
From here:

For a family of four, the maximum SNAP amount is $649. The Trump proposal would take away half of those funds ($324) and send the family a box of food once a month with the equivalent of $324 worth of canned/boxed food instead.

How much would a box containing $324 worth of canned food, milk, juice, peanut butter, etc weigh?? Well over 100 pounds, I'm estimating. How will they be shipping millions of these boxes that are so heavy that most people can't even lift them?

Last edited by Chetumal; 02-20-2018 at 10:55 AM.
  #113  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:59 AM
Steve MB Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 12,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
They also keep comparing it to blue apron, which is not "shelf stable, non-perishables", but actually contains meats and produce.

Not that they aren't bullshitting all around about it anyway, but they need to make up their mind as to whether it is something "like Blue Apron", which is their claim, or something utterly unlike anything that a respectable company would ask people to pay money for.
You're overanalyzing it. They brought up the Blue Apron analogy for one reason, and one reason only -- the name evokes an image of fancy expensive service for people who can't be bothered to handle things their own selves. It's a "welfare queen" dogwhistle.

The diabolical cleverness of it is that the proposal doesn't need to actually go anywhere (it won't) to get the meme into circulation.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 02-20-2018 at 11:01 AM.
  #114  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:59 AM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
We have so many new omnibus threads that there will probably not be a need to start a new thread here ever again. It will always be "there's an omnibus thread for that"!
We should have an omnibus thread of omnibus threads to make it easy for people to find them.
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #115  
Old 02-20-2018, 12:08 PM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
We should have an omnibus thread of omnibus threads to make it easy for people to find them.
I encouraged them to think beyond the omnibus and they failed me.
  #116  
Old 02-20-2018, 12:26 PM
enipla enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 12,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chetumal View Post
...How much would a box containing $324 worth of canned food, milk, juice, peanut butter, etc weigh?? Well over 100 pounds, I'm estimating. How will they be shipping millions of these boxes that are so heavy that most people can't even lift them?
Yep. I did a rough calculation on that the other night. 16 million people x 50lbs. A typical semi truck carries 40,000 lbs.

That would be 20,000 semi truck loads. A month.

Oh yeah, that will save money.

And that's only at 50lbs a month.

People like trump don't understand that not everyone can wish for something and it will magically appear on their doorstep.

I posted elsewhere that perhaps this was just 'round table spitballin, thinking out of the box' I'm all for that. But that this ridiculous idea ever stood up for 5 minutes is quite an insight into just how stupid this administration is.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #117  
Old 02-20-2018, 12:54 PM
Crazy Canuck Crazy Canuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
You're overanalyzing it. They brought up the Blue Apron analogy for one reason, and one reason only -- the name evokes an image of fancy expensive service for people who can't be bothered to handle things their own selves. It's a "welfare queen" dogwhistle.
Somebody give this man a cigar, this is such a great example of a political dogwhistle that I am bookmarking it for future reference. 100% nailed it.
  #118  
Old 02-21-2018, 09:36 AM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 34,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chetumal View Post
How much would a box containing $324 worth of canned food, milk, juice, peanut butter, etc weigh?? Well over 100 pounds, I'm estimating. How will they be shipping millions of these boxes that are so heavy that most people can't even lift them?
Oh no, the shipping comes out of the $324. The poor make that up in their savings of shoe leather.
__________________
ďIf you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let 'em go, because man, they're gone.Ē ~~Jack Handey
  #119  
Old 02-21-2018, 09:50 AM
crowmanyclouds crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
{...} They brought up the Blue Apron analogy for one reason, and one reason only -- the name evokes an image of fancy expensive service for people who can't be bothered to handle things their own selves. It's a "welfare queen" dogwhistle. {...}
Speaking of "dog whistles",

What they want us to think the poor will get Blue Apron . . . what they're actually thinking the poor should get Blue Buffalo.

CMC fnord!
  #120  
Old 02-21-2018, 01:04 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 36,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
Speaking of "dog whistles",

What they want us to think the poor will get Blue Apron . . . what they're actually thinking the poor should get Blue Buffalo.

CMC fnord!
Please..."Ken-L Ration" is about as far as the GOP is willing to pay for.
  #121  
Old 02-23-2018, 07:02 AM
mistymage mistymage is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
Speaking of "dog whistles",

What they want us to think the poor will get Blue Apron . . . what they're actually thinking the poor should get Blue Buffalo.

CMC fnord!

Hey, do you happen to know what the winning Lottery numbers for the next big one are? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...8-billion-deal

Ok, so the cereal giant is adding a dog food brand to its lineup which just means it's diversifying its holdings but it does make my tinfoil crinkle in a way that sounds like a snort.
  #122  
Old 02-23-2018, 09:33 AM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 58,934
Was it Fridays that had a skit parodying the Lorne Greene Alpo commercials? The context of the parody is that in the late-'70s people were scandalised to hear about old people eating dog food because meat was too expensive to buy on their Social Security benefits. Paraphrasing and shortening here...

Lorne Greene: This is Fred. He's 83 years old. He's healthy and active. Maybe Fred's been around so long because Alpo's been around so long.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017