socialism in America.
- Thread starter zdreg
- Start date
I think @Magic made a good point, you may want to go back and reread his/her post. What is currently legal is a distillation of what our society determines is morally right. I am not debating an interpretation of the current law, just like those who were against laws allowing slavery or banning sodemy or interracial marriage weren't debating how to interpret the current law. I, and they, are questioning the moral underpinning of those laws. Turns out in many cases there isn't one or it's weak or wrong. Turns out we live in a democracy where laws aren't handed down on stone tablets from a burning bush, we get to change them. Just because something is THE LAW is entirely irrelevant to a discussion of if it should be the law.
I'm not sure what "any city is handed out SNAPS to able body people" means? Are you doubly confused and think that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is both restricted to the disabled and administered by cities. Are you aware that 44% of SNAP recipients are children? While able body (sic), you've got to be pretty twisted to think a 5 year old ought to be working for food if by accident of birth they ended up with parents who couldn't provide enough food to them!
And by Disability (sic) payments, presumably you're talking about Social Security Disability Benefits? The program we've been spending less and less money on every year since 2008. I don't think the term "huge increase" means what you think it means!
You're being fed a bunch of crap that's not only false but easily verifiable as so if you could be bothered to get off your couch and do some independent research and thinking. Don't let fox and friends make you come off like an moron or a jerk by believing what they're feeding you!
I am tired of paying for people buying porterhouse steaks and lobsters then offering them to me for exchange of money, if they can sell them, why don't they get extra jobs selling? What about people who have a family, work 40 hours plus and go to school and foot their tuition cause they make just too much to get grants. I have no TV's in my house, nor do I buy democratic newspapers, I normally read British news on web. I have no problem with children getting food through SNAPS. I don't understand if parents can't get available jobs they not working other jobs, otherwise they be in same situation 20 years from now. The only organizations I donate to are for the homeless and nonprofits for low income dental services, I am not blind yet, I give me time as well, people I come in contact do have problems, seldom do they own cars or fancy jewelry, but many I see at Walmart drive better than me. I live in the boonies of West Texas, many farms out here, each day farmers either pick up illegals near the border or they show up at all the farms, paid by cash daily, so many businesses pay by cash, so never reported.
And you are correct, it has been declining for disability, I was wrong.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/dibStat.html
But I wonder how many still receiving cause of some shame in 2011?
http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
When you start with the "you can give away all your own money you want" thing it's a pretty clear indication that you've come to the point that you realize you don't actually have any logical rationale for why Paris Hilton should be getting hundreds of millions upon her father's death despite doing nothing to earn or deserve it by simple accident of birth. But decide to double down anyway. That's the logical equivalent of saying there's no need for a law against slavery, if you don't want slaves nobody's going to stop you from buying some and setting them free.
At this point the more interesting question becomes why, when asked why something that's always been is the way it is, do some people ask why and others fetch around for something, anything, to avoid asking why?
I've visited all 50 states, lived in 9 of them (military transfers). I have thousands of friends and acquaintances, most of them deeply conservative (20 years in the military). And neither I or a single person I know has ever claimed to witness first hand someone buying a lobster and then selling it to get cash. And I'm pretty confident in saying it hasn't happened to you either, you're incorporating a story you saw go around your bubble as if it's not only real but reflects the vast majority of SNAP payments. Either that or you're one exceptional person who lives in some crazy spot where this is rampant (if so, where did you witness this, just out of curiosity?) I'm sure this has happened at least once, among the hundreds of millions of SNAP payments that go out there will certainly be some fraud and fox and friends will be able to record an instance of it. And we should do our best to eliminate it and punish those responsible. That's a reasonable reaction. An unreasonable reaction is to advocate for elimination of the program, which best I can tell is what you're looking for? Not clear given your writing style. Or is it that you want limits on how long an "able bodied" person can get SNAP. Oh, we already have that, passed in the Clinton years of all things.
"SNAP rules require all recipients meet work requirements unless they are exempt because of age or disability or another specific reason. (Children, seniors, and those with disabilities comprise almost two-thirds of all SNAP participants.) Forty-three percent of SNAP participants live in a household with earnings." and "ABAWDs can only get SNAP for 3 months in 3 years if they do not meet certain special work requirements. This is called the time limit.
To be eligible beyond the time limit, an ABAWD must work at least 80 hours per month, participate in qualifying education and training activities at least 80 hours per month, or comply with a workfare program." https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/able-bodied-adults-without-dependents-abawds
Here's what the right wing (and extreme left wing for that matter) do to mess with your thought process. They take something that's complex and nuanced. They oversimplify it to us vs them, us hard working families have our money stolen by the government and redistributed to lazy layabouts leeching off our hard earned money. Then they throw in a highly charged anecdotal story, generally told in a breathless manner.."They're buying porterhouse steaks with their SNAP card and selling them for drug money!!!!". And then they make the logical leap...this is a horrible awful evil communist (or fascist, or whatever other ist your group loves to hate) program, we should get rid of it immediately or cut it at least. Don't fall for this shit. Let's do some simple math. 43% of participants are working. So if you assume 44% are children and therefore aren't working, and 43% are working, you've got a grand total of 13% OF ALL SNAP PARTICIPANTS! who meet your preconceived lazy and worthless notion. Given that 2/3 of SNAP participants are either elderly, children, or disabled, then given the math above it's a miniscule number of able bodied adults lying about sucking up SNAP benefits. And given the 3 month time limit, doing so for 20 years as you assert just isn't happening.
Are there people abusing SNAP. Absolutely? Are there people abusing Social Security Disability Benefits? I'm sure there are. Is the answer to a papercut on your hand to cut it off? Most of us would say you fix the problem, not throw away the entire program because of the actions of a tiny percentage of the participants. You're a reasonable person right? Why aren't you advocating for identifying the extent and location of the problem and rooting it out rather than letting the propaganda types convince you that there's this vast problem that in reality simply doesn't exist?
And my question still stands, why when faced with a question that doesn't have an obvious answer beyond "we always did it that way" or "because I say so" do you double down and head off on logically unrelated tangents instead of also asking why and seeking a rational reason?
Just to further illustrate where you're going with this, I just donated every cent I own to poor kids and disinherited my kids. Does that change the answer to the question as to why it makes sense morally or rationally that Paris Hilton should get all her dad's millions despite doing nothing to earn or deserve them except an accident of birth? It's pretty irrelevant one way or the other when discussing why morally and practically a law should be as it is. As I'm sure you're aware, swerving into an ad hominem where you focus on the person making the argument vice the argument itself is a sure sign you're out of airspeed and ideas, as we used to say in my flying days.
No, I was making a rhetorical point. My kids are still kids so they have a trust that will get them through to 18 and no further, plus transferrable GI bill benefits that I can't assign outside my family. All of which is completely and utterly irrelevant to any argument about if it makes sense morally or rationally that Paris Hilton should get all her dad's millions despite doing nothing to earn or deserve them except an accident of birth?
No need to get the hackles up and calling people names my friend, again a good sign that you're not arguing from a rational point of view. If you want to convert people to a religion or make an emotional appeal, certainly one's actions can be effective to conversion. I don't seek to convert you, I seek to have a rational discussion and would be honestly interested to hear any rational argument that could be made for the current status quo, of which at this point there appear to be none. And I'm fascinated by the Confirmation Bias concept and seeing it in action, which is where we've apparently moved to at this point. All good either way from the point of learning something from my perspective.