Just a few ideas I have about food stamp regulations...

1) Performance Based Benefits - I'd like to see people with children have their benefits increased or decreased based on their children's school performance. Sort of a "performance based pay" situation. I feel that would allow for more parent involvement in their child's education as well as punish those who are not utilizing their right to a "free" education effectively. If performance based pay is good enough for the teachers, it should be good enough for the parents too.

2) Time Limits - If you're a parent, you should be eligible for 7 years or until your child is of working age (16) and can contribute to the household. If not, you have 5 years. Extensions may be granted for people who are employed or can show effort of attempting to gain employment and can pass point #3 below.

3) Touchy subject...Drug Testing - OK by me! I know it's costly for the state, but if we're already wasting money on people wasting money on drugs, let's stop wasting money! (IBT "that's racist!"...by the way, I'm black, so it can't be racist.)

4) FS + Free / Reduced Lunch = Double Dipping - Combine the Free / Reduced Lunch and Food Stamp benefits to prevent excessive food consumption and childhood obesity. Kids need 3 square meals...I get that, but if you're getting "free" food at home + "free" food at school, why do you need both? Just make your kid's lunch already!

5) Store brand / local produce benefit - Incentivize people who are frugal about spending on store brand rather than name brand items by allowing additional discounts or benefit points perhaps. Also, give bonus points for produce purchases and additional bonus points if the produce is local.

6) Require ID at the register - I have to do it for my credit card...why not for food stamp cards???

7) Evaluation of financial obligations + mandatory financial responsibility classes - NFL Sunday ticket???? You're wasting your money as well as the taxpayer's. Have these people trim the fat so we can do so as well. If lack of education is the issue, lets get them educated on how to manage money.

I've got some more ideas, but I feel I've hit the TL;DR point. Let's talk about it!

7/11/2013 1:46:10 PM

Because dumb people don't deserve to eat.

[Edited on July 11, 2013 at 2:03 PM. Reason : or be entertained.]

7/11/2013 2:03:15 PM

1) You are right that parent involvement is crucial to a child's education, but this is totally the wrong way to encourage that. You are going to have parents framing it as "If you don't get a B on this test we won't be able to eat this week." Sorry but that is way too much pressure for a third grader IMO. Having shitty parents is never the child's fault, it shouldn't be teh responsibility of the kid to bring home the bacon food stamps.

2)I think the number of people just chilling on food stamps is vastly overblown. I'm not against time limits necessarily, but I just don't see it preventing a lot of fraud.

3)Considered unconstitutional under the 4th amendment.

4)ok this is legit. I'd be open to studying just how big of a problem this might be and if it does prove to be significant, whittling back one program or the other. I'd point out that free and reduced lunch at schools is a better program than food stamps, less fraud, more control on how healthy the food is (we can do better here admittedly), and we know its the kids getting food.

5)Agree with trying to encourage healthier and local options. I think SNAP is now accepted at a lot of farmer's markets, so we might be actually moving in that direction (albeit slowly). Unfortunately, I think name-brand food companies are gonna be pissed if you try to get people to buy generic stuff (and those companies pull a lot of weight in DC - could be an uphill battle).

6)agree, an easy request to help prevent fraud

7)we've all heard horror stories, but I'm not convinced this type of stuff is as common as some make it seem. Again I'm open to preventing fraud (duh, who isn't), but first I think we need to do some research to see how prevalent it is. Current rules, if enforced well, could be enough to dial the fraud back - we just don't really know.

7/11/2013 2:16:42 PM

^^I didn't call anybody dumb. There's also an opportunity to educate (#7). I guess my point is lazy people don't deserve to eat for free...especially if they're wasting money themselves. In terms of entertainment, there are lots of channels out there that are free. I don't have cable.

^1) unfortunately I think we're in a situation where there is either no pressure or too much pressure (which I believe is better) on the parents. I'm not referring to removing someone's benefits, just reducing them. I guess it's like a "you need to make a B or we won't eat Kellogg's cereal this month and we'll have to eat the store brand". My thought process was to encourage the "the harder you work the better your lifestyle" mentality. If we look at it like a parent gets X amount and for every A, the parent gets Y additional, then it's more of a bonus or incentive rather than a penalty.

[Edited on July 11, 2013 at 2:27 PM. Reason : ]

7/11/2013 2:18:07 PM

The welfare discussion always had a broken wheel to it.

Conservatives want to look at incentives. Why would you work when one additional hour would do anything other increase your earnings by the wage for that hour? At some point, you're going to start disqualifying yourself from benefits. By this logic, we should make benefits go up with better performance of kids in school.

The compassion motive points in the entirely opposite direction. Why the hell would we give money to someone who doesn't need the money? By that logic, we should only offer benefits to people who are doing worse - making less money, kids doing poor in school...

Quote :

"Drug Testing - OK by me! I know it's costly for the state, but if we're already wasting money on people wasting money on drugs, let's stop wasting money!"

We already waste plenty of money.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2008/03/food-stamp-isaacs

Quote :

"In 2006, the program provided benefits to 26.7 million people in an average month, at a combined federal and state cost of $35.8 billion. While most of these funds were spent on food stamp benefits for families, administrative costs totaled $4.8 to $5.7 billion, depending on how such costs are defined."

I'm sorry, but 16% administrative costs is unacceptable for giving money away.

Quote :

"6) Require ID at the register - I have to do it for my credit card...why not for food stamp cards???"

Oh look! More administrative costs, although levied on the poor vendors who have to accept these forms of payment.

Quote :

"7) Evaluation of financial obligations + mandatory financial responsibility classes - NFL Sunday ticket????"

Holy administrative costs Batman! There won't be a program left after your reforms. We'll have already spent it all evaluating the program.

7/11/2013 2:36:03 PM

^

Quote :

"We already waste plenty of money."

so....we should continue to do so?

Quote :

"Oh look! More administrative costs, although levied on the poor vendors who have to accept these forms of payment."

if we save money on fraud and add time limits, that could make up the administrative costs. also, checking ID at a grocery store doesn't really have an added administrative cost. plus, the vendor is also a taxpayer, so it's at a benefit to them as well to relieve the country of wasteful spending and fraud. I believe the request could go like this...

Dear Vendor: Help our country fight fraud + abuse + wasteful spending...Check ID's.

I'll concede that there is a fractional labor cost of checking ID, but if the cashier clocks in / out at the same time they were scheduled anyways, the actual labor cost added is dismissible.

Quote :

"Conservatives want to look at incentives. Why would you work when one additional hour would do anything other increase your earnings by the wage for that hour? At some point, you're going to start disqualifying yourself from benefits. By this logic, we should make benefits go up with better performance of kids in school."

That's kind of the whole point....to make this temporary. You don't want everyone to be a lifer in this system do you?

Quote :

"I'm sorry, but 16% administrative costs is unacceptable for giving money away"

AGREED!!!!

[Edited on July 11, 2013 at 3:05 PM. Reason : ]

7/11/2013 3:00:19 PM

Quote :

"3) Touchy subject...Drug Testing - OK by me! I know it's costly for the state, but if we're already wasting money on people wasting money on drugs, let's stop wasting money!"

What would your response be to people who are on welfare and are found to be using drugs?

Quote :

"I guess it's like a "you need to make a B or we won't eat Kellogg's cereal this month and we'll have to eat the store brand". My thought process was to encourage the "the harder you work the better your lifestyle" mentality. If we look at it like a parent gets X amount and for every A, the parent gets Y additional, then it's more of a bonus or incentive rather than a penalty."

how can you not see this as anything but a pathway to child abuse?

[Edited on July 11, 2013 at 3:11 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2013 3:10:04 PM

^

Quote :

"What would your response be to people who are on welfare and are found to be using drugs?"

the same as termination of employment based on drug use / failed drug tests...denial of pay.

I was thinking...
failed test --> period of suspended benefits --> retest --> reinstatement, if passed. if failed...dikembe mutombo.

drugs cost money, food costs money, if you don't spend on drugs, you can buy food. the equation seems pretty simple to me.

Quote :

"how can you not see this as anything but a pathway to child abuse?"

we already have laws against child abuse. we can enforce those as it is.

[Edited on July 11, 2013 at 3:17 PM. Reason : ]

7/11/2013 3:16:07 PM

Just nonchalantly spray them with paint like those advocates used to do fur coats.

7/11/2013 3:22:58 PM

^ then they'll huff the paint fumes. drugs is drugs, yo.

7/11/2013 3:26:07 PM

Quote :

"we already have laws against child abuse. we can enforce those as it is."

We already have laws against drug use too

7/11/2013 3:34:09 PM

Quote :

"drugs cost money, food costs money, if you don't spend on drugs, you can buy food. the equation seems pretty simple to me."

i guess it isn't even any more complicated than that!

7/11/2013 3:42:03 PM

What's the eviction process in NC? I believe it's something like 5 days after non-payment.

Like it or not, the people we're talking about have liquid assets of a few 100 dollars, or less. That's just simple fact. If you suspend payment to them, what do you think happens?

Quote :

"if we save money on fraud and add time limits, that could make up the administrative costs."

Quote :

"if the cashier clocks in / out at the same time they were scheduled anyways, the actual labor cost added is dismissible."

Googling tells me that the average transaction amount for food stamps is $25.50.
(35.8-5.7)*1e9/25.5 = 1.18 billion transactions.
A fair assessment puts the price of checking ID on the order of $10 million.

Quote :

"drugs cost money, food costs money, if you don't spend on drugs, you can buy food. the equation seems pretty simple to me."

So much talk about fraud...

In the extreme, you could only give out assistance in-kind. There's a certain kind of situation you would be permissive of granting food stamps for. Like a family trying to make rent and eat.

This is communism ultimately. That is a system where the government provides in-kind. Their hand is involved in the provision of everything. Whats wrong with that? It collapses. That happens because the market is inefficient and the government is not. By limiting food stamps to buying food, you're making a less efficient system, more like communism, but it's a system still aided by the free market. To get less free-market, we could take an interest in what they buy at the grocery store - look at the types of brands they buy, exactly like you've suggested.

With each step, with each bit of control, the system becomes less efficient, we get closer to communism.

Lots of people support the idea that a restriction of freedom should come with receiving aid from the government. After all, that's the entire point of food stamps.

But here's the reality - people who need food aren't benefited by the restrictions. If they were given aid through the IRS and the existing tax system, at basically no new overhead, those people could buy the same amount of food they could have with food stamps. The program would have more money. Although, it wouldn't be so much as a "program" as a clause in tax law.

7/11/2013 3:42:05 PM

Quote :

"We already have laws against drug use too"

But we don't have laws against receiving government benefits while using drugs.

Quote :

"i guess it isn't even any more complicated than that!"

It really isn't. I just feel people aren't candid enough to drive the point home that spending money on non-essential goods comes with an opportunity cost.

Quote :

"If they were given aid through the IRS and the existing tax system, at basically no new overhead"

I'm against adding additional strain and complexity to our existing tax system and the IRS. There would be new overhead.

Quote :

"A fair assessment puts the price of checking ID on the order of $10 million."

If we can recoup over $10 million in fraud prevention, I'd say it is worth it.

7/11/2013 4:49:57 PM

Quote :

"But we don't have laws against receiving government benefits while using drugs."

Section 115 - Denial of Assistance and Benefits for Certain Drug-related Convictions
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/memo/PRWORA/99/Section_115.htm

7/11/2013 4:53:29 PM

^so why is drug testing benefit recipients unconstitutional then?

Is it that this applies to people convicted of drug related crimes vs. seeking out drug usage?

[Edited on July 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM. Reason : ]

7/11/2013 4:57:08 PM

These people receive an average of $133 per month.

How much does a drug test cost?

7/11/2013 5:00:42 PM

133 per month over the span of years < cost of occasional (random) drug testing

basic drug tests average about $45 after fees. A 7-panel is about $50 and a 9-panel test is around $55 - 60.

7/11/2013 5:29:12 PM

See, this is incredible:

Can I, as a sole proprietor, perform this role of drug testing? More to the point, can the people in line to receive the benefits perform this role? What kind of degree or training would be necessary for them?

We've created a class of people to which almost all jobs in our economy are locked to them. Inequality like we have doesn't arise in free markets. The reason they're poor is because they're blocked from competing in so many areas.

People struggling to get by can't even get handouts from the government without the payments being garnished by powerful institutions, and they've brainwashed you into enforcing them. You see this as the government trying to lift people up, and I see your proposals as pushing them down while trying to lift them up. What they need is economic freedom. This conservative cartel in the US has become ridiculous. They go after the scant few progressive policies that actually help people. Everything about your agenda just plummets people further into helplessness.

Drug testing wouldn't just hurt drug users on food stamps, it would hurt non-drug users too. Are you going to test their children while you're at it?

7/11/2013 5:55:36 PM

And why would we limit it to people receiving SNAP? Shouldn't that logic apply not only to all federal and state aid, but to anyone on a federal or state payroll? What is special abut SNAP that it should be the only thing requiring testing?

[Edited on July 11, 2013 at 6:04 PM. Reason : haha, he doesnt know how inequalities work. i less than three this guy.]

7/11/2013 6:02:44 PM

Also anyone who receives any kind of federal aid, such as people who go to school, or people who drive on roads.

DRUG TESTS FOR EVERYONE! FOREVER!

7/11/2013 6:10:53 PM

Driving is optional, eating is not. Plus, we're getting off topic here. We could certainly jump to drug testing social security benefits as well, but I figured this thread would be specific to food stamps. We know there is abuse in the system and spending is out of control. Just because one form of aid is federally provided, it doesn't mean it is the same.

7/11/2013 7:24:39 PM

But your argument before was money they didn't have to send on food would obviously now be going to drugs, so by association government money is going to drugs.

Why is that not true about anything non-food? Why is that not true about other aid? Why is than not true about a salary?

7/11/2013 7:29:22 PM

How about we all stop giving fuck about SNAP benefits and worry about something that actually costs taxpayers real money

7/11/2013 7:56:46 PM

Quote :

"We could certainly jump to drug testing social security benefits as well"

Drug test people to get their own fucking money back? This is why people hate conservatives. Your positions are a disgrace. You're advocating for bigger government and less individual responsibility. I should call you a liberal!

If assistance doesn't work, then get rid of it. Burying it under a litany of requirement defeats the purpose unless we live in an information utopia where it's practically free to get independently verified and rigorously collected data. Just get rid of the policies that are holding these people down along with it. Their problem is that their labor is in disparagingly low demand.

7/12/2013 8:15:25 AM

1. SNAP is one of the best administered welfare programs we have, with a fraud rate of about 4% (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-956T), and 5% for (Federal) administrative overhead. Both of these have improved dramatically over the past decade, the fraud rate in particular fell by almost half, despite what Newt Gingrich might try to intimate.

2. Last year they made up $71 billion out of the governments 3.5 trillion dollar expenditures, a mighty 2.1%. 2 cents out of every tax dollar (assuming we ever pay the debt part) to feed hungry people and their children. The fucking horror.

3. If you actually give a shit about food stamps reform you're either ignorant/gullible, have really misplaced priorities, or have secret fears of black people stealing your pocket change at night and buying lobsters with it.

4. Seriously, stop trying to fuck with the food of people who were fucked by a recession completely beyond their control. These people were paying taxes to make room for your fucking mortgage deduction just a few years ago, so suck it up you sociopath. Hating on or trying to micromanage the lives of "poor people", many of whom you're only a handful of lost paychecks away from, wont make you any richer.

5. By every measure imaginable, SNAP is more effective, more efficient, and less prone to error or fraud than it's been at any time in the past two decades, and is probably the most morally defensible expenditure we have considering most of the rest of your tax dollars go to torturing and murdering brown people or giving tax breaks to people who earn more in a day than you do in a year.


Source: Literally any information source that isn't a commonly linked domain on drudgereport.com, chain emails from your grandmother, or a facebook post, try this for one: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3239


[Edited on July 12, 2013 at 8:46 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2013 8:30:16 AM

Adding more regulations and rules to aid is the wrong way to go.

There have been several studies that show that aid had a bigger impact when usage of it is less restricted. There may be more isolates incidences of people abusing the system, for the benefit of more people better utilizing the help to not need it anymore.

If regulations and nanny state rules are bad, why do conservatives insist on more regulations and nanny state for people who are just scraping by?

There are people who are too dumb to ever not be poor or make something of themselves, but if you tailor to these people, you're less likely to be able to help the ones who CAN benefit from the assistance.

And when you bring up things like drug testing welfare recipients it makes it clear your intention isn't to help society or help government or help tax payers, it's just to be a dick and to VERY unfairly demonize a group of people who already have it harder, because drug testing costs more than it's worth, and just adds red tape.

7/12/2013 9:11:34 AM

Quote :

"Drug test people to get their own fucking money back?"

I'm not advocating for it, I was merely saying that we were getting off topic by stating that if one form of federal assistance requires drug testing, all federally funded programs should.

Quote :

"3. If you actually give a shit about food stamps reform you're either ignorant/gullible, have really misplaced priorities, or have secret fears of black people stealing your pocket change at night and buying lobsters with it."

None of the above. Just a concerned citizen who has seen (first hand) abuse of the system in numerous occasions and would like to see the dependence decrease and responsibility increase. Also, why does it always have to be about black people? I don't think race was brought up until you added it in just now.

Quote :

"2. Last year they made up $71 billion out of the governments 3.5 trillion dollar expenditures, a mighty 2.1%. 2 cents out of every tax dollar (assuming we ever pay the debt part) to feed hungry people and their children. The fucking horror."

Even if it is 2.1%, it's still a good bit of money. A small horror is still a horror.

Quote :

"4. Seriously, stop trying to fuck with the food of people who were fucked by a recession completely beyond their control. These people were paying taxes to make room for your fucking mortgage deduction just a few years ago, so suck it up you sociopath. Hating on or trying to micromanage the lives of "poor people", many of whom you're only a handful of lost paychecks away from, wont make you any richer."

I'm not concerned about the people who have paychecks. They work and earn their benefits. It's the people who don't work, have no desire to work, and are still procreating that I am concerned with. You shouldn't give out money to people just because they are alive and can make children. It's like giving an award for having sex, which is the easiest thing in the world to do. Also, I'm not trying to get richer through them, I work for a living.

Quote :

"And when you bring up things like drug testing welfare recipients it makes it clear your intention isn't to help society or help government or help tax payers, it's just to be a dick and to VERY unfairly demonize a group of people who already have it harder, because drug testing costs more than it's worth, and just adds red tape."

It isn't demonizing, it is auditing. I have to get drug tested for employment, why not this? It is in a way, a form of employment...except there's no work involved. My intention is to reduce fraud and waste, not to "bully" poor people. I also take issue with other waste like "corporate welfare" and pandering to rich people as well, which I will reserve for another thread, but food stamps are a form of social welfare that I believe is not running effectively and could certainly use some updates.

[Edited on July 12, 2013 at 9:32 AM. Reason : ]

7/12/2013 9:25:18 AM

Quote :

"I'm not concerned about the people who have paychecks. They work and earn their benefits."

This thread is around half about people who have paychecks.

- In 2010, 41 Percent Of SNAP Participants Lived "In A Household With Earnings.
- Most SNAP participants were children or elderly. Nearly half (47 percent) were under age 18 and another 8 percent were age 60 or older. Working-age women represented 28 percent of the caseload, while working-age men represented 17 percent.

What do you not get about working and remaining poor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor

What is your proposal for them? How should these people get out of poverty? Many of them are working. Many of them are not working and looking for a job. Of the people not fitting into these categories are elderly and children.

You make statements that only apply to able-bodied adults who could have a job and don't get one. Those people virtually don't exist. I don't care about your anecdotal evidence, it's wrong!

We do have a problem with 10 of millions of people who are in dire poverty, and they are working. They would love to be out of poverty. You offer no solutions. Are you okay with these people starving, homeless, dying?

Over and over again you dodge the question, because you won't recognize a group of people that the statistics tell us exists. All on the basis that it 'seems' like they shouldn't exist because you think that a job should be fine, in a completely linear fashion.


Thanks Obama?



More like, thanks Fox News.

[Edited on July 12, 2013 at 9:40 AM. Reason : ]

7/12/2013 9:39:01 AM

We could also build one less bomber per year and save 100000000000 times more than any dumbshit SNAP reform idea that's been posted in this thread so far.

7/12/2013 9:44:32 AM

Quote :

"^so why is drug testing benefit recipients unconstitutional then?"

it's not unconstitutional. it's just morally wrong. it's unconstitutional and morally wrong. how do you feel about testing for alcohol? what about checking bank accounts for any "unnecessary" entertainment expenses?

and it's also bullshit that your company drug tests applicants. poor argument.

[Edited on July 12, 2013 at 10:11 AM. Reason : v]

7/12/2013 9:46:50 AM

^
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/26/court-rejects-florida-law-requiring-drug-testing-for-welfare-recipients/

Quote :

"Court rejects Florida law requiring drug testing for welfare recipients "

Quote :

"he 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled that a lower court was right to temporarily halt enforcement of the state's drug-testing program. The opinion said the state of Florida hadn't shown a "substantial special need" for such mandatory drug testing. The ruling, authored by Circuit Judge Rosemary Barkett, added that "there is nothing inherent to the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a `concrete danger' that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use." Tuesday's decision means that the law will continue to not be enforced as the courts continue to resolve the underlying legal issues. Florida officials previously argued that Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, benefits are intended to ensure family stability and child welfare, and that drug use subverts both of those aims. But opponents said drug testing as a condition of getting welfare benefits is an unconstitutional search and seizure."

[Edited on July 12, 2013 at 10:14 AM. Reason : ^lol you the man]

7/12/2013 10:00:44 AM

Quote :

" You shouldn't give out money to people just because they are alive and can make children."

Ok, pop quiz. So we cut off welfare because "it's the right thing to do". Then what happens?

A. They all suddenly become employable, everyone gets jobs, happy time

B. They all starve, yet still respect the law, so they slink off in the woods and go die without any trouble, being mindful of the mess their dead bodies might behind.

C. A shit load of homeless, starving, possibly drug addicted poor people with children hit the streets and do whatever they can to stay alive/feed their addiction. Dead children litter the streets.

7/12/2013 10:02:11 AM

I'm all for birth restrictions.

Heck, let's apply this globally. After all, restrict births here and the pressure of people trying to immigrate here will just be that much stronger in the future. I interpret immigration into the nation as a signal that either we had too few children here or they had too many there.

Inequality is exasperated dearly because of birth rate inequality. Those with the means don't have enough children and those without decent means have more than the replacement rate. Why does that make any sense? It obviously doesn't, and it obviously creates terrible social consequences.

Implement birth restrictions and then hand out welfare like candy. Spend 10 seconds thinking about it, and it's obvious that this policy will create the type of nation you will want to live in.

7/12/2013 10:09:08 AM

Quote :

"how do you feel about testing for alcohol?"

alcohol isn't a federally banned substance, so I'm not for that unless you are behind the wheel of a car.

Quote :

"what about checking bank accounts for any "unnecessary" entertainment expenses?"

Sure, why not? If I was receiving money from an organization, I'd be willing to be transparent about what I spent it on if I wasn't providing any return services to justify the money received.

Quote :

"and it's also bullshit that your company drug tests applicants. poor argument."

"it's bullshit" isn't really a good argument either.

7/12/2013 10:42:03 AM

Quote :

"Ok, pop quiz. So we cut off welfare because "it's the right thing to do". Then what happens? A. They all suddenly become employable, everyone gets jobs, happy time B. They all starve, yet still respect the law, so they slink off in the woods and go die without any trouble, being mindful of the mess their dead bodies might behind. C. A shit load of homeless, starving, possibly drug addicted poor people with children hit the streets and do whatever they can to stay alive/feed their addiction. Dead children litter the streets."

whoa...extreme statements there, buddy. take a few steps back off the "jump to conclusions" mat. I've just been talking about adding drug testing and accountability. I didn't say we should cut it off completely.

7/12/2013 10:45:58 AM

^^
Your argument is not consistent. Do you think people should be drug tested because they're wasting food stamp money on drugs, or because you think drug use is inconducive to being a productive member of society?

[Edited on July 12, 2013 at 10:52 AM. Reason : i'm happy to give you arguments for either case]

7/12/2013 10:52:20 AM

^^ Drug testing, and then cutting off welfare for those that fail, and their children.

Congratulations, you are a baby murderer.

7/12/2013 10:58:38 AM

Quote :

"Sure, why not? If I was receiving money from an organization, I'd be willing to be transparent about what I spent it on if I wasn't providing any return services to justify the money received. "

OK, sure, I'm willing to let my employer see my bank statements and credit card statements. Let's make this universal, everyone has to divulge their spending to their employer.

But of course, I'll also require that any place I spend money has to give me information about how its spent. If I'm going to buy service from AT&T, I'm going to need salary list, full access to their own financial transactions. Actually, if I need information on their hiring practices, you know, just to be sure that the CEO selection process is open and honest.

[Edited on July 12, 2013 at 10:59 AM. Reason : ]

7/12/2013 10:58:58 AM

^^^I actually believe both. Do you believe drugs are a sound investment?

^^suspending, not cutting off. pass the next go 'round and you're back on it. actually, parents using drugs are doing their children more harm than cutting off welfare.

^obviously you didn't read the whole sentence

Quote :

"if I wasn't providing any return services to justify the money received."

[Edited on July 12, 2013 at 11:07 AM. Reason : ]

7/12/2013 10:59:43 AM

drugs (including alcohol) are unnecessary and cost money.

To the extent that we live in warring communes fighting for survival, I would understand and accept a ban on recreational substance abuse.

7/12/2013 11:02:05 AM

^I agree

7/12/2013 11:03:04 AM

I actually don't care about what's right/wrong. I just want to not get attacked by a bunch of starving drug addicts when I take a stroll in my city because someone thought it was a good idea to implement the bootstrap policy. If it means a couple extra bucks off my paycheck then so be it.

7/12/2013 11:13:29 AM

^sounds reasonable. as long as you're up front about it.

7/12/2013 11:15:00 AM

could you respond to this:

Quote :

"But your argument before was money they didn't have to send on food would obviously now be going to drugs, so by association government money is going to drugs. Why is that not true about anything non-food? Why is that not true about other aid? Why is than not true about a salary?"

why should this only be true for SNAP?

7/12/2013 11:34:00 AM

^things like roads, federal grants, etc. I look at as infrastructure investments. they benefit the area / country at large and are invested for growth purposes. things like food stamps benefit the individual and there are no risks or responsibilities associated with receiving them. that is why salary isn't in the same category because salary comes with the expectation of services provided in return for the salary. with food stamps, there is no "earned" income. I figure there isn't such a thing as "free money"....or at least there shouldn't be.

[Edited on July 12, 2013 at 11:41 AM. Reason : ]

7/12/2013 11:40:30 AM

so it has nothing to do with government money going to drugs, its simply about ideology? is that your position?

7/12/2013 11:42:13 AM

^for me, it is about responsibility and holding people to a higher standard when receiving something for nothing. if you want to call that ideology, then sure.

I see drug usage as showing a lack of responsibility if you are already down on your luck. it's not really any different from gambling when you're poor. it just isn't a sound investment. why feed the habit?

7/12/2013 11:49:11 AM

so then that standard should apply to all aid? early you said it was only for SNAP because you have to eat food. So welfare, unemployment, medicare, medicaid, disability, farm subsidies that are not contingent on actual production, etc... should all require drug testing, right?

7/12/2013 11:51:30 AM

Can someone please explain how a person is able to buy drugs with food stamps?

7/12/2013 11:59:49 AM