Since you asked about me and the DMV, I'll go with it. I've been to the DMV 4 times in the last 18 years, 2 of those because I bought a used car out of state. One time I waited about a half hour, the other 3 less than 5 minutes. I had to pay an emission testing fee for my used car, but it turned out I didn't stay in the area very long. A couple months they returned the money to me, which I had forgotten about, because it didn't end up to be my permanent address. I didn't have to call or bug anyone about it. Every two years I get a reminder to get new tags in the mail. I pay about $80 bucks online, and that's it. Bonus: my plates have a bicyclist on them and it says 'share the road' on it. I've spent more time in line in my last two trips to Costco then I have in the DMV in 18 years (owning car(s) that entire time). Have you now changed the definition of efficiency to how long someone has to wait?
The DMV is a good example of a government run agency that is, all things considered, relatively efficient. And although it is a quasi gov. agency, the US Postal Service (an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States) is remarkably efficient. Instead of demanding we privatize everything, why don't we use what does work as an example to streamline other agencies? It's been done before and I'm just saying it would make sense to work on making the structures we have in place more efficient. And while we're at it, we could take some lessons from mother nature- she is very efficient.
To be honest, dealing with the DMV online is a breeze! But, not so much when you physically go there. Granted it was several years ago, but it was a huge sweaty, crowded, confusing clusterfuck - this was with me having an appointment, too - and with the exception of a few, many of the employees were detached, surly, and treated their customers like shit (which, to be fair, I can sort of understand; there were some pieces of work in line with me).
Now the USPS? Inefficient sometimes (try getting mis-delivered mail sent to the right address!), but I get that they're hurting due to this electronic age. Also, the folks who deliver the mail in my area rock.
His underlying point was responding to another poster's thoughts on the decimation of the middle class. He's underlying point was - it's due to inflation. Do you disagree?
Yes. the middle class is disappearing because of many factors and trying to skirt the blame away from corporations who took their tax breaks, shipped the jobs to Asia, kept wages as low as possible and busied the people with bickering about gay marriage and reproductive rights.... Well that's kinda silly. Summing it up with "it's inflation" and the saying "inflation is a tax and taxes are theft" is absurd.
Do you think that if we just stopped taxes that inflation would disappear and we'd see a return of the middle class?
who fucked whose gf/wife again? i'm hoping it was Joey
You're a classy guy, bro.
dude seriously lighten up...you're like the bully that cries when someone says something mean back - only after you've put down every person you respond to in a condescending manner. you can't be the victimizer and claim victimhood - well actually you do it so I guess it's possible. either way it was totally a joke i honestly don't hope that brian steals your significant other leading to you both coexisting for years and never speaking to one another.
Thanks. You said it a lot nicer than I could have.
You wrote about four or five sentences responding to those couple words - at times saying I'm a bully, a victimizer and one who seeks victimhood. Why? I don't know. I think you may have some issues you should look into.
"Like the bully" - a simile. Why do I get frustrated with you? Because you obviously have a level of intellect that is interesting to debate with but you don't debate leading to the issues I should look into (frustration over the fact that I have never witnessed a post where you concede a point - could be out there I just haven't seen it).
It's an internet board on a rock band's website. No need to get frustrated and lash out. That's all I'm saying. You've done it before, this isn't a one time thing.
Not everyone agrees with you. Moreover, lots of people, including yourself don't often concede points here - particularly when they believe they have no reason to.
you're right i shouldn't get frustrated, but i really think that there's some messy middle we could get into. i gave you that inflation is part of it, but you either deny or ignored the things i pointed out. but again you're right it's a rock band website and there's no reason to get any further into discussion beyond what we both think is "true". sorry for that.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I throw water on Ron Paul supporters and they melt.
Then I click my heels together and I go to some barren wasteland where everything is black and white and smells like horses. Have to wait for a tornado to bring me back.
Sucks.
You're a funny guy. Normally you like to purposefully drop a gay theme in a reply, now you drop a Judy Garland reference like its automatic.
How you qualify for food stamps and what you get on them is totally relevant to productivity. So, let's use that brain of yours to connect the dots for a moment. Let's start with - what are food stamps? They are basically a form of welfare for food. One goal is to not have people starve to death - another is to eat relatively healthy - which matters because we may have to pay for these folks healthcare now too. So, in order to encourage this they ban certain products alcohol and tobacco products and HOT food, for example. But, this gets confusing - One may not be able to buy a tuna melt wheat flat breat (because it's hot). Yet, one can buy soda, Italian Hoagie with boatloads of extras including extra oil and bacon, chips and tastycakes. What's healthier? Welcome to the world or gov't bureaucracy. Our goal of getting healthy products into these folks stomachs seems to run into a bit of a roadblock there, huh?
Then let's think about bang for our buck. Since, input here is $. Out tax $. One factor we should look at is what they are buying, it's ability to nourish and the expense of that product. You don't see the US Army feeding it's soldiers hoagies, Doritos and soda. They buy relatively low priced options - which are healthier. But, back to the point. So, let's talk practicality and price here - White meat chicken is $2.33 at Walmart. Green beans are $.5 a can. Water is free. That would feed a fucking family of four for under $3. Most people go to convenience stores instead with the EBT card as the video I showed and buy shit. This shit is more expensive than stuff you can buy at the store and cook.
Ugh. Then let's talk about logistics. The point (Output) of these plans is to provide a cushion. We don't want tons of people on these plans, right? Our goal is not to have boatloads of people on these plans. Yet, it's been growing a lot... an awful lot. Under the current admin - it's grown 100%. Moreover, why are we saying the following on the SNAP website: Most applicants will not be asked for proof of money in the bank or other resources, any non-citizens are eligible for SNAP, etc. Why even say that? Why advertise?
So, let's recap. Although we want those who need these programs to buy healthy food, a lot (I'd argue the majority) of people aren't using this to buy healthy food. Although we want this to be an economical program, a lot of people (I'd argue the majority) aren't using this to buy less expensive/healthier food. And although we seek to minimize these applications, it's growing and our gov't is encouraging recruiting new folks, including non-US citizens.
Since you asked about me and the DMV, I'll go with it. I've been to the DMV 4 times in the last 18 years, 2 of those because I bought a used car out of state. One time I waited about a half hour, the other 3 less than 5 minutes. I had to pay an emission testing fee for my used car, but it turned out I didn't stay in the area very long. A couple months they returned the money to me, which I had forgotten about, because it didn't end up to be my permanent address. I didn't have to call or bug anyone about it. Every two years I get a reminder to get new tags in the mail. I pay about $80 bucks online, and that's it. Bonus: my plates have a bicyclist on them and it says 'share the road' on it. I've spent more time in line in my last two trips to Costco then I have in the DMV in 18 years (owning car(s) that entire time). Have you now changed the definition of efficiency to how long someone has to wait?
First, you must live in the country. You certainly don't live in the Northeast. Second, If you're really trying to argue the DMV is productive and efficient, you're kidding yourself.
You're shifting all the way through this thread. I tried getting you to lock into a definition of efficiency, then you moved to productivity, then you went to saying does it meet it's supposed goal, then saying it's not efficient because it doesn't meet what goal you applied to it, then it's input vs. nutritional output, then maybe giving what the qualification for food stamps means it's inefficient? then back to the DMV where efficiency is measured by how long people have to wait in line. Maybe we can sort this out? You made the claim that the private world is more efficient than the government world, so I'm just wondering how that's such a solid fact in your mind.
My DMV visits were in 3 cities, small, medium, and large. Maybe you're suggesting that long lines happen where there are more people, but not enough DMV locations to cover the load. They probably keep the number of branches lower to, you know, save tax payer money.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,423
Some people laugh about the USPS. I don't get that. I've sent and received hundreds of books in the last 12 years and only once ever had one get crossed up and most of those hundreds were sent via media mail- the cheapest rate. In my entire life I've never lost any first class mail. The fact that I can send a little postcard clear across country and have it arrive there in a few days is amazing. I'll never understand people who complain about the USPS. Never.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Some people laugh about the USPS. I don't get that. I've sent and received hundreds of books in the last 12 years and only once ever had one get crossed up and most of those hundreds were sent via media mail- the cheapest rate. In my entire life I've never lost any first class mail. The fact that I can send a little postcard clear across country and have it arrive there in a few days is amazing. I'll never understand people who complain about the USPS. Never.
Sometimes I've been able to get those flat rate boxes to my folks 2000 miles away in two days. Four is the longest.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,423
My DMV visits were in 3 cities, small, medium, and large. Maybe you're suggesting that long lines happen where there are more people, but not enough DMV locations to cover the load. They probably keep the number of branches lower to, you know, save tax payer money.
My experiences have been the same, Go Beavers, at least for the last 20 years. From the time I got my first drivers license in 1968 until the mid nineties the DMV could be problematic at times. But in the last 15 to 20 years I've never had a single hassle with DMV.
Again, this is an agency some people laugh at or complain about but looking at the enormous amount of work they accomplish and the benefit many if not most of us derive from it- that being the privilege to drive- we should be thankful. I think anyone complaining about DMV should have their license revoked. Don't like the system? Walk, take a bus or a train, learn to ride a horse- besides which, all of those means of transportation are better for the planet anyway.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Here's another example...in Maryland Baltimore Gas and Electric went from a publicly run energy company to a privately run company. Our energy bill went from like 50 bucks a month to around 200+. Many people couldn't afford it and even some Republicans said that deregulating utilities was a massive mistake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_E ... regulation It's things like this that make me wonder why people believe prices will drop if we deregulate everything. There is little evidence that would be the case.
Here's another example...in Maryland Baltimore Gas and Electric went from a publicly run energy company to a privately run company. Our energy bill went from like 50 bucks a month to around 200+. Many people couldn't afford it and even some Republicans said that deregulating utilities was a massive mistake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_E ... regulation It's things like this that make me wonder why people believe prices will drop if we deregulate everything. There is little evidence that would be the case.
Monopolies are clearly an issue. Competition is key.
However, did you stop and think that perhaps when it was gov't run, taxes were subsidizing your electric bill? And, isn't it more appropriate that folks pay for what they use? That may even result in folks using less and saving the environment.
Keeping prices low is not necessarily the best thing, nor does it indicate efficiency. (How much of our tax dollars are not supporting the USPS? Yes, the privatized companies cost more. But, if I absolutely, positively need it there overnight, I do not use USPS. Plus, with electronic communications, do I need my tax dollars supporting an effectively bankrupt organization? That's what folks mean by the USPS being inefficient. A few of you have interpreted that completely incorrectly.)
Now, I'm not saying the resulting prices are right, either. I have no idea. I'd need to study up more on the examply you provide. But, to say the gov't was MORE efficient or the BEST for this business is certainly not the conclusion I draw from your example.
With monopolies, some oversight is necessary. But, I'd still prefer private enterprise over the gov't running most anything.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
You're shifting all the way through this thread. I tried getting you to lock into a definition of efficiency, then you moved to productivity, then you went to saying does it meet it's supposed goal, then saying it's not efficient because it doesn't meet what goal you applied to it, then it's input vs. nutritional output, then maybe giving what the qualification for food stamps means it's inefficient? then back to the DMV where efficiency is measured by how long people have to wait in line. Maybe we can sort this out? You made the claim that the private world is more efficient than the government world, so I'm just wondering how that's such a solid fact in your mind.
My DMV visits were in 3 cities, small, medium, and large. Maybe you're suggesting that long lines happen where there are more people, but not enough DMV locations to cover the load. They probably keep the number of branches lower to, you know, save tax payer money.
Talking about moving goal posts. Ha ha.
Let’s recap our discussion here:
I originally asked: Why does government do charity work best? And went into why I don’t think they do. I also asked why do some here equate ALL people who disagree with "government" forms of welfare, as people who hate the poor? Etc.
You responded saying : Look at food stamps. Administrative costs are kept low, where do you identify inefficiency in how it's run?
I responded to your question of how food stamps are efficient: Showing you this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o64Fz-KW1Dk
…, talking about how easy it easy to get in the program and what type of food you can buy. I also responded to a number of your other points, PROBABLY MOST IMPORTANTLY – I responded to your question on how one measures efficiency – I said productivity. Later, I asked for a response to my original questions.
You responded saying: I’m shifting the goal posts in regards to government efficiency. You said “if it’s defined by productivity, then stay with it, but then you reference what you can get on food stamps and what it takes to qualify, and this is based on one anecdotal story about your friend. How to qualify for food stamps and what you can get on them is a different topic.”
I responded to your point with a detailed analysis of why how you qualify for food stamps and what you get on them is very relevant to productivity (which I had already shown can be used to measure efficiency). Efficiency is defined as use of resources (or inputs) to “produce” an output (in food stamps it’s a service). So, I went into some specifics about that output. What is we want? We want to minimize the desire for the use of food stamps, but when they are used we want to use the minimum resources (our tax $) in order to get the best result or output (poor people who get relatively healthy food). I showed explicitly why each of these are violated. And I explained why they aren’t productive at all. Remember productivity was a measure you said “to stick with “ as a proxy for efficiency. But, I just showed you why they aren’t efficient too.
Then you respond and say “you’ve been shifting through this entire thread – I tried to get you to lock into a definition of efficiency, then you moved to productivity, then you went to saying does it meet it's supposed goal, then saying it's not efficient because it doesn't meet what goal you applied to it, then it's input vs. nutritional output, then maybe giving what the qualification for food stamps means it's inefficient?” blah blah… Later on you try to change the subject.
So, here I am, left scratching my head. You didn’t address a single word that I wrote. I showed you why you were very, very wrong in regards to food stamps being efficient. Meanwhile, your response is – nonsensical and dodging. You didn’t address one of my points.
My points had to do with efficiency all along. When you asked how to get at efficiency I said we could look at productivity. When I think of productivity I think of how much output we get out of an input. I showed you that the definition of efficiency is similar to that. Here it is again - efficiency refers to the use of resources so as to maximize (or minimize) the production (or costs) of goods and services. Then I showed you why we don’t get a lot of what we want or output from the input we put in. We’re not benefiting from food stamps being used on Doritos and Soda. Further, were not benefiting from our resource or input (our tax $) when less expensive items that are also healthier (like chicken and vegetables) could be consumed FOR LESS MONEY! Finally, we’re not benefiting from our input (our tax $) when there is constant, alarming growth in the use of these food stamps. In that aspect, this is a minimization problem, not a maximization problem. We dont want a boatload of people on these programs, right? We want to minimize the use of this service, not maximize it. I showed you examples of how the government has this wrong. One more item I didn’t include before, but I should. Our $ is used as an input to get this poor output. That’s inefficiency, but another item to note is we have NO CHOICE in how our $ is used. Now that I’ve shown this isn’t efficient, we can’t say we think program X, Y or Z is a better place to park our loot. We have no choice whatsoever in how our input is used to create this shitty output. That’s inefficient as well.
So, here I am – left saying to you – READ MY LAST POST, WHICH DOES A MUCH BETTER JOB OF DESCRIBING ALL THIS AND FEEL FREE TO RESPOND TO IT. You asked me to show you how you were wrong about food stamps being efficient and I did. That’s all I can do. I’m not going to respond to more of your questions, when you don’t address my previous responses because they proved that you were incorrect. Why would I?
for every person who abuses the social safety net whether it be food stamps or welfare - there is another guy who is abusing loopholes and tax shelters to avoid paying taxes ... yet, all we ever hear about is how there are all these freeloaders ...
there are always gonna be people who abuse the system ... but at the end of the day - there needs to be an incentive to not ... if you create a situation where a person can get more by being on social assistance than working 3 jobs and 70 hrs a week - well, guess what - they are gonna do what's best for them and if that means not making too much money - they are gonna do that ...
you don't solve the poverty problem or welfare abuse by increasing the prosperity gap ...
Here's another example...in Maryland Baltimore Gas and Electric went from a publicly run energy company to a privately run company. Our energy bill went from like 50 bucks a month to around 200+. Many people couldn't afford it and even some Republicans said that deregulating utilities was a massive mistake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_E ... regulation It's things like this that make me wonder why people believe prices will drop if we deregulate everything. There is little evidence that would be the case.
Monopolies are clearly an issue. Competition is key.
However, did you stop and think that perhaps when it was gov't run, taxes were subsidizing your electric bill? And, isn't it more appropriate that folks pay for what they use? That may even result in folks using less and saving the environment.
Keeping prices low is not necessarily the best thing, nor does it indicate efficiency. (How much of our tax dollars are not supporting the USPS? Yes, the privatized companies cost more. But, if I absolutely, positively need it there overnight, I do not use USPS. Plus, with electronic communications, do I need my tax dollars supporting an effectively bankrupt organization? That's what folks mean by the USPS being inefficient. A few of you have interpreted that completely incorrectly.)
Now, I'm not saying the resulting prices are right, either. I have no idea. I'd need to study up more on the examply you provide. But, to say the gov't was MORE efficient or the BEST for this business is certainly not the conclusion I draw from your example.
With monopolies, some oversight is necessary. But, I'd still prefer private enterprise over the gov't running most anything.
oh yeah i forgot to mention BGE is on trial for not responding quickly enough when millions went without power following a storm this summer...and then power went out again last night. Enron did the same thing. This whole "free market's will save the world" logic is a theory with more holes than swiss cheese.
You're shifting all the way through this thread. I tried getting you to lock into a definition of efficiency, then you moved to productivity, then you went to saying does it meet it's supposed goal, then saying it's not efficient because it doesn't meet what goal you applied to it, then it's input vs. nutritional output, then maybe giving what the qualification for food stamps means it's inefficient? then back to the DMV where efficiency is measured by how long people have to wait in line. Maybe we can sort this out? You made the claim that the private world is more efficient than the government world, so I'm just wondering how that's such a solid fact in your mind.
My DMV visits were in 3 cities, small, medium, and large. Maybe you're suggesting that long lines happen where there are more people, but not enough DMV locations to cover the load. They probably keep the number of branches lower to, you know, save tax payer money.
Talking about moving goal posts. Ha ha.
Let’s recap our discussion here:
I originally asked: Why does government do charity work best? And went into why I don’t think they do. I also asked why do some here equate ALL people who disagree with "government" forms of welfare, as people who hate the poor? Etc.
You responded saying : Look at food stamps. Administrative costs are kept low, where do you identify inefficiency in how it's run?
I responded to your question of how food stamps are efficient: Showing you this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o64Fz-KW1Dk
…, talking about how easy it easy to get in the program and what type of food you can buy. I also responded to a number of your other points, PROBABLY MOST IMPORTANTLY – I responded to your question on how one measures efficiency – I said productivity. Later, I asked for a response to my original questions.
You responded saying: I’m shifting the goal posts in regards to government efficiency. You said “if it’s defined by productivity, then stay with it, but then you reference what you can get on food stamps and what it takes to qualify, and this is based on one anecdotal story about your friend. How to qualify for food stamps and what you can get on them is a different topic.”
I responded to your point with a detailed analysis of why how you qualify for food stamps and what you get on them is very relevant to productivity (which I had already shown can be used to measure efficiency). Efficiency is defined as use of resources (or inputs) to “produce” an output (in food stamps it’s a service). So, I went into some specifics about that output. What is we want? We want to minimize the desire for the use of food stamps, but when they are used we want to use the minimum resources (our tax $) in order to get the best result or output (poor people who get relatively healthy food). I showed explicitly why each of these are violated. And I explained why they aren’t productive at all. Remember productivity was a measure you said “to stick with “ as a proxy for efficiency. But, I just showed you why they aren’t efficient too.
Then you respond and say “you’ve been shifting through this entire thread – I tried to get you to lock into a definition of efficiency, then you moved to productivity, then you went to saying does it meet it's supposed goal, then saying it's not efficient because it doesn't meet what goal you applied to it, then it's input vs. nutritional output, then maybe giving what the qualification for food stamps means it's inefficient?” blah blah… Later on you try to change the subject.
So, here I am, left scratching my head. You didn’t address a single word that I wrote. I showed you why you were very, very wrong in regards to food stamps being efficient. Meanwhile, your response is – nonsensical and dodging. You didn’t address one of my points.
My points had to do with efficiency all along. When you asked how to get at efficiency I said we could look at productivity. When I think of productivity I think of how much output we get out of an input. I showed you that the definition of efficiency is similar to that. Here it is again - efficiency refers to the use of resources so as to maximize (or minimize) the production (or costs) of goods and services. Then I showed you why we don’t get a lot of what we want or output from the input we put in. We’re not benefiting from food stamps being used on Doritos and Soda. Further, were not benefiting from our resource or input (our tax $) when less expensive items that are also healthier (like chicken and vegetables) could be consumed FOR LESS MONEY! Finally, we’re not benefiting from our input (our tax $) when there is constant, alarming growth in the use of these food stamps. In that aspect, this is a minimization problem, not a maximization problem. We dont want a boatload of people on these programs, right? We want to minimize the use of this service, not maximize it. I showed you examples of how the government has this wrong. One more item I didn’t include before, but I should. Our $ is used as an input to get this poor output. That’s inefficiency, but another item to note is we have NO CHOICE in how our $ is used. Now that I’ve shown this isn’t efficient, we can’t say we think program X, Y or Z is a better place to park our loot. We have no choice whatsoever in how our input is used to create this shitty output. That’s inefficient as well.
So, here I am – left saying to you – READ MY LAST POST, WHICH DOES A MUCH BETTER JOB OF DESCRIBING ALL THIS AND FEEL FREE TO RESPOND TO IT. You asked me to show you how you were wrong about food stamps being efficient and I did. That’s all I can do. I’m not going to respond to more of your questions, when you don’t address my previous responses because they proved that you were incorrect. Why would I?
That clears up your stance better. I wouldn't say I'm very, very wrong about foodstamps being inefficient. I'm looking at it as money in vs. money (in the form of food) out, which it does well. You're looking at it as money in, nutrition and how many are on it as the output. You seem to be letting other ideological issues bleed into whether you see it as efficient, like saying it's too easy to get on food stamps. Are you saying there should be more barriers and more hoops to jump through? If requirements were heightened, that wouldn't make it any more or less efficient, it would just make it so fewer people were on it. There's more people on it now because of the economy. It also seems like there's an ideological disagreement with allowing people the freedom to choose what to buy with their food stamps. I can see your point there, but I'm more comfortable with the government allowing the individual freedom to make choices for themselves.
Again, it sounds like where we're diverging is I'm looking at foodstamp efficiency in how it's delivered and the process of when the person applies to when they get it and then how it's maintained. You seem to be applying different measurement devices to efficiency. You also haven't made a case for how the private sector would be more efficient.
You said I avoided several of your points earlier. I'll look through the thread more later on.
That clears up your stance better. I wouldn't say I'm very, very wrong about foodstamps being inefficient. I'm looking at it as money in vs. money (in the form of food) out, which it does well.
But, it doesn't do that well at all. I showed you an example. A family can eat a full nutritious (although this word is not important) meal for about $3. Chicken, veggies - water (free). Meanwhile, a bag of Doritos costs about $3 - if you add soda and other crap - you could be looking at $10. If you can admit there's waste going on here, I don't know what to say.
You're looking at it as money in, nutrition and how many are on it as the output.
I looked at in a number of ways. I looked at it the efficiency of the money spent. The $ in, the $ out. I looked at it as the efficiency of the output. What do we hope to achieve with this service? That showed that we're not doing a good job - people are eating shit, and are encouraged to. Then I looked at it as what's the goal? We don't want tons of people on this, being dependent on it. We want it as a cushion for those who need it TEMPORARILY! That's not happening either. I showed you that the government is actually advertising that illegals can get on this program.
You seem to be letting other ideological issues bleed into whether you see it as efficient, like saying it's too easy to get on food stamps. Are you saying there should be more barriers and more hoops to jump through?
Ha ha... I love how you say other people are ideological and letting that bleed into their line of thinking. You're defense of the EFFICIENCY of food stamps, isn't ideological? ha ha.... you crack me up. I don't even think a rational Democratic congressman who was off the record and being honest would say food stamps are "efficient". Yet, here you are trying to pretend they are.
Anyway, let me answer - I'm saying - that food stamps are inefficient. The goal is to provide a cushion, they don't - they provide a figurative mattress with extra niceties. The goal is to not let people starve to death - not to give them name brand junk food. Another goal is to not spend excess money (of ours) on this, but I've showed you they do. For example, why the F do we subsidize soda or Doritos?
If requirements were heightened, that wouldn't make it any more or less efficient, it would just make it so fewer people were on it.
You don't get it. We don't want people on it forever - it's a minimization problem. That doesn't mean we kick them off, we just don't give them incentives to stay on. For example, if they had to buy chicken and fruit and vegetables and that's it - that will keep them healthy and alive, yet they may get tired of that and be incentivized to get off.
Did you watch that video? That showed some think it's a fucking joke to use our tax money and the cards associated like it's a fucking college meal plan card. It's not - it's our tax money. The purpose is to keep people alive, not starve to death that sort of thing. Not provide luxury junk food.
It also seems like there's an ideological disagreement with allowing people the freedom to choose what to buy with their food stamps. I can see your point there, but I'm more comfortable with the government allowing the individual freedom to make choices for themselves.
Ha ha, how about the people who are fucking paying for it? They don't deserve the same freedom of choice as the consumer who's getting free money? They can't say hey - I'll give you X, Y or Z in terms of food? I mean A, B and C are more expensive and worse for the peoples health.
Further, since your so into individual freedom I assume you'd be ok if they buy alcohol then? Seriously, answer that. How about cigarettes? You're more comfortable with the government allowing the individual freedom to make choices for themselves? Why can't they buy that stuff? Please answer, don't just brush it under the rug and ignore.
Again, it sounds like where we're diverging is I'm looking at foodstamp efficiency in how it's delivered and the process of when the person applies to when they get it and then how it's maintained.
Your definition is off for a number of reasons, but I believe you know that. Even if it was completely 100% correct, I've already showed you "waste" is involved. Unnecessary expenses are involved. We are not getting our bang for our buck that we could. That's not efficient.
You seem to be applying different measurement devices to efficiency. You also haven't made a case for how the private sector would be more efficient.
I'm applying "The DEFINITION" of efficiency. Minimum input to achieve maximum output. I defined each, and even gave a number of caveats to each.
As for private sector, companies would be more efficient because they would have no choice. If they wasted money, an alternative service provider could be used instead - and their profits would decline and threaten their very existance. I wouldn't deny that full efficiency may not be achieved, but it certainly would be improved because of THE INCENTIVES private market has. Further, not only would it be more efficient service-wise or bang for buck, in the private world we, as tax payers, could also CHOOSE which service we prefer to help the poor. No dictation. Choice - which you just said you're all for, right? This would encourage competition AND better service, which would also restrict waste. Finally, with these services in mind, a private enterprise most likely would encourage COST SAVINGS. So, what's that mean? Well, they most likely would try to help those who need care to only need it temporarily. All the above is not achieved by gov't.
for every person who abuses the social safety net whether it be food stamps or welfare - there is another guy who is abusing loopholes and tax shelters to avoid paying taxes ... yet, all we ever hear about is how there are all these freeloaders ...
there are always gonna be people who abuse the system ... but at the end of the day - there needs to be an incentive to not ... if you create a situation where a person can get more by being on social assistance than working 3 jobs and 70 hrs a week - well, guess what - they are gonna do what's best for them and if that means not making too much money - they are gonna do that ...
you don't solve the poverty problem or welfare abuse by increasing the prosperity gap ...
Great post! Your point about needing an incentive reminds me of Barbara Ehrenreich's excellent book, Nickel and Dimed. Here's a good, quick synopsis:
I throw water on Ron Paul supporters and they melt.
Then I click my heels together and I go to some barren wasteland where everything is black and white and smells like horses. Have to wait for a tornado to bring me back.
Sucks.
You're a funny guy. Normally you like to purposefully drop a gay theme in a reply, now you drop a Judy Garland reference like its automatic.
Technically, That was an L. Frank Baum reference. I was talking about the book and not that silly movie.
oh yeah i forgot to mention BGE is on trial for not responding quickly enough when millions went without power following a storm this summer...and then power went out again last night. Enron did the same thing. This whole "free market's will save the world" logic is a theory with more holes than swiss cheese.
are you implying that energy markets are free?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
for every person who abuses the social safety net whether it be food stamps or welfare - there is another guy who is abusing loopholes and tax shelters to avoid paying taxes ... yet, all we ever hear about is how there are all these freeloaders ...
there are always gonna be people who abuse the system ... but at the end of the day - there needs to be an incentive to not ... if you create a situation where a person can get more by being on social assistance than working 3 jobs and 70 hrs a week - well, guess what - they are gonna do what's best for them and if that means not making too much money - they are gonna do that ...
you don't solve the poverty problem or welfare abuse by increasing the prosperity gap ...
I hear about rich people skirting taxes every day...
not sure why you would say all we ever hear about are all these free loaders...
you won't get an argument from me, corporate welfare needs to end as well.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I must say that those who have issues with "hand outs" have no idea what it's like on the other side of the fence. Hence the need to hurl the term derogatorily. I've only read half of the Ryan thread, but it amazes me the number of people that think that those receiving gov't services are nothing but lazy. Truly no clue there.
This is not entirely true in all cases. I'm 100% behind handouts for people who need them. I participate in giving handouts every week.
What I'm opposed to is the government managing the handout process.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Why does the government do charity work best? In my mind, they aren't very good at even balancing a checkbook. They are very good at spending money on nonsense - like slug races. How in the world do you rationalize that they aren't wasting a lot of the money that's meant to be directed to these programs? Moreover, how do they provide checks to ensure there aren't "free riders"? Does anyone like paying for those free riders - the people who aren't looking for employment? How exactly are these gov't programs teaching people so they don't end up back with the same problem? Does the government have as much of an incentive to get them a job and off the books as a private enterprise would? Why can't one choose how they'd prefer to donate? Why does it need to be forced via taxes to do it the one way?
Moreover, why do some here equate ALL people who disagree with "government" forms of welfare, as people who hate the poor? For all you know, they contribute a hell of a lot more (as a percentage of their wealth) than you do - both in taxes and in charitable donations, they'd just prefer to the charitable donations because they know the tax money goes to slug races, running up more debt, hiring more useless gov't positions and printing money to hide it all.
Amen. I'm definitely not anti-poor, I'm just anti-government.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'm applying "The DEFINITION" of efficiency. Minimum input to achieve maximum output. I defined each, and even gave a number of caveats to each.
As for private sector, companies would be more efficient because they would have no choice. If they wasted money, an alternative service provider could be used instead - and their profits would decline and threaten their very existance. I wouldn't deny that full efficiency may not be achieved, but it certainly would be improved because of THE INCENTIVES private market has. Further, not only would it be more efficient service-wise or bang for buck, in the private world we, as tax payers, could also CHOOSE which service we prefer to help the poor. No dictation. Choice - which you just said you're all for, right? This would encourage competition AND better service, which would also restrict waste. Finally, with these services in mind, a private enterprise most likely would encourage COST SAVINGS. So, what's that mean? Well, they most likely would try to help those who need care to only need it temporarily. All the above is not achieved by gov't.
I'm sure you'll say that I'm missing what you're saying or something to that effect, but do you realize that with your definition of how to measure the efficiency of food stamps, that your conclusion that it's inefficient will always be correct, no matter what is changed with the program. The line can always be moved to make it harder to get on, and the amount can be reduced. Why give a guy $200 a month? Why not 150, or $100? Lets put more limits on what can be bought. Based on your definition, it could still be labelled inefficient. Let's put more limits on what can be bought, and limit the time. Now lets just do an air drop of dry goods on the edge of town (an idea proposed in AMT). Even that final idea would fit your definition of inefficient, because you don't have a goal or measurement identified that would be acceptable. In your measurement, you can always say that there should be fewer people on food stamps, that less should be spent on it, and that better food should be purchased while on it. I obviously don't operate in the business world, but I imagine when they talk about productivity, they identify specific goals, and contained in those goals are specifics related to costs and output. At the end of the timeframe, they could look at the numbers and tell if the goal was reached. In your proposal, it seems like your just saying: the less spent on it and the fewer people on it, the more efficient it is.
Wanting to be able to chose how your tax dollars should be spent on the poor is just another way of saying that someone should be able to have the government just be a reflection of their individual values. Some people think a huge military is necessary, I don't. Can I divert my tax dollars somewhere else? You're sticking with your view that private sector always does better than the public sector, but in the case of public assistance, there's also some apples and oranges happening.
Further, since your so into individual freedom I assume you'd be ok if they buy alcohol then? Seriously, answer that. How about cigarettes? You're more comfortable with the government allowing the individual freedom to make choices for themselves? Why can't they buy that stuff? Please answer, don't just brush it under the rug and ignore.
I have "my own" questions on this issue for this thread which were pretty much bipassed, these questions may look familiar:
Why does the government do charity work best? In my mind, they aren't very good at even balancing a checkbook. They are very good at spending money on nonsense - like slug races. How in the world do you rationalize that they aren't wasting a lot of the money that's meant to be directed to these programs? Moreover, how do they provide checks to ensure there aren't "free riders"? Does anyone like paying for those free riders - the people who aren't looking for employment? How exactly are these gov't programs teaching people so they don't end up back with the same problem? Does the government have as much of an incentive to get them a job and off the books as a private enterprise would? Why can't one choose how they'd prefer to donate? Why does it need to be forced via taxes to do it the one way?
Moreover, why do some here equate ALL people who disagree with "government" forms of welfare, as people who hate the poor? For all you know, they contribute a hell of a lot more (as a percentage of their wealth) than you do - both in taxes and in charitable donations, they'd just prefer to the charitable donations because they know the tax money goes to slug races, running up more debt, hiring more useless gov't positions and printing money to hide it all.
I don't remember anyone saying that the government does charity work "best". I guess you're saying that private charities are best? Obviously they're different and go about delivery of services differently. I talked in some other post about follow up and checks with regard to public assistance.
Some people equate people who disagree with welfare as hating the poor because there's a certain level of disdain that comes through while they try to back up their position. People who argue against welfare seldom make intelligent arguments and instead try to support what they're saying with beliefs rooted in myths and stereotypes. You know, like how 'most' food stamp money in spent on convenience store junk food, that people on public assistance live comfortable lives, that it encourages dependency, that they're on it permanently, and that those people just need to go get a job. Then they drop in the anecdotal story about their friend or uncle who had a neighbor who abused the system as if to say that this is the majority of recipients. People who also disagree with public assistance also talk in a way about recipients as though they should be shamed when accessing services. They tend to lack empathy, and also tend to attribute their success with inflating their individual efforts and down play or deny their interconnectedness that contributed to their success. Therefore, they conclude that everyone has the same opportunity they had, and if they just worked hard and put forth effort, they could be financially successful just like themselves.
I hear about rich people skirting taxes every day...
not sure why you would say all we ever hear about are all these free loaders...
you won't get an argument from me, corporate welfare needs to end as well.
i don't see any threads about rich people taking advantage of the system ... and i'm not even talking about corporate welfare ...
edit: it's pretty crazy what some people will go to jail for yet all these corporations on wall street who committed fraud haven't been charged with anything ...
Further, since your so into individual freedom I assume you'd be ok if they buy alcohol then? Seriously, answer that. How about cigarettes? You're more comfortable with the government allowing the individual freedom to make choices for themselves? Why can't they buy that stuff? Please answer, don't just brush it under the rug and ignore.
Cigarettes and alcohol isn't food.
Is soda food? Alcohol seems as much food or drink as soda?
I'm sure you'll say that I'm missing what you're saying or something to that effect, but do you realize that with your definition of how to measure the efficiency of food stamps, that your conclusion that it's inefficient will always be correct, no matter what is changed with the program. The line can always be moved to make it harder to get on, and the amount can be reduced. Why give a guy $200 a month? Why not 150, or $100? Lets put more limits on what can be bought. Based on your definition, it could still be labelled inefficient. Let's put more limits on what can be bought, and limit the time. Now lets just do an air drop of dry goods on the edge of town (an idea proposed in AMT). Even that final idea would fit your definition of inefficient, because you don't have a goal or measurement identified that would be acceptable. In your measurement, you can always say that there should be fewer people on food stamps, that less should be spent on it, and that better food should be purchased while on it. I obviously don't operate in the business world, but I imagine when they talk about productivity, they identify specific goals, and contained in those goals are specifics related to costs and output. At the end of the timeframe, they could look at the numbers and tell if the goal was reached. In your proposal, it seems like your just saying: the less spent on it and the fewer people on it, the more efficient it is.
I feel like you're trying not to understand what I'm saying. The definition of efficiency is the definition of efficiency. Just because you said food stamps are efficient and I tried to show you they weren't using the definition, doesn't mean the definition has problems. It means your original statement has problems.
But, let's back up. There's a number of ways to look at efficiency here, I tried to address all of them. But, the most logical one - "bang for your buck". Min inputs in to max output. Efficiency.... I stressed already that $ are the inputs. The output is questionable, but let's go with most people served given inputs. I showed you could actually feed more people (output) with less money (input). They are wasting money on high-ticket stuff like Doritos and soda, when chicken and canned vegetables/fruit and water is cheaper. This is a problem of efficiency. The bang for the buck is not working - it's not efficient.
There are others where output definitions change which I also went over.
Wanting to be able to chose how your tax dollars should be spent on the poor is just another way of saying that someone should be able to have the government just be a reflection of their individual values. Some people think a huge military is necessary, I don't. Can I divert my tax dollars somewhere else? You're sticking with your view that private sector always does better than the public sector, but in the case of public assistance, there's also some apples and oranges happening.
Government should be a reflection of individual values. They are a representative body.
In the ideal setting, yes you should be able to have a say in how your tax dollars are spent. It seems to me that you're saying that an individual citizen, should have no say whatsoever in how their money is spent. I think that's pretty sick, personally. I get that we operate in a representative democracy, but your say is your vote. Hopefully, one day your money won't need to be spent on x and mine won't be need to be spent on y, if we'd prefer it to be spent elsewhere. I actually think that's a great idea. Problem is government won't ever do that.
Government wants more people on food stamps
By Tami Luhby @CNNMoney June 25, 2012: 5:17 AM ET
The federal government is running radio ads to boost enrollment in food stamps.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- More than one in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the federal government wants even more people to sign up for the safety net program.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been running radio ads for the past four months encouraging those eligible to enroll. The campaign is targeted at the elderly, working poor, the unemployed and Hispanics.
The department is spending between $2.5 million and $3 million on paid spots, and free public service announcements are also airing. The campaign can be heard in California, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, and the New York metro area.
"Research has shown that many people -- particularly underserved seniors, working poor, and legal immigrants -- do not understand the requirements of the program," said Kevin Concannon, a USDA under secretary.
The radio ads, which run through June 30, come amid a bitter partisan fight over the safety net program. Republican lawmakers want to reduce funding for the benefit or turn it into a block grant program, which would also minimize the cost. Democrats, however, are not willing to make major cuts.
The issue has become so heated that Newt Gingrich called President Obama the "food stamp president" to show how he's increased government spending.
Food stamp enrollment certainly shot up during the Great Recession, though it had been rising for more than a decade.
President Bush launched a recruitment campaign, which pushed average participation up by 63% during his eight years in office. The USDA began airing paid radio spots in 2004.
President Obama's stimulus act made it easier for childless, jobless adults to qualify for the program and increased the monthly benefit by about 15% through 2013.
Getting off government assistance
Some 46.4 million people are in the food stamps program, also known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. That's just a touch below the record high hit in January.
Still, more than one in four Americans eligible for food stamps do not participate, according to USDA records.
And the rate is much lower among the the elderly and people just above the poverty line. Nearly two-thirds of folks in these categories aren't enrolled.
In one ad, an elderly woman is surprised to learn that her friend is on food stamps. The friend explains that now that she's retired and on a fixed income, the program "helps me eat right when money's tight."
"Millions of low-income seniors struggle to afford life's necessities like food and medicine," said Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Enrolling in SNAP can help ease that struggle."
Deficit hawks, however, don't want to see the government spend more money on food stamps at a time when lawmakers are trying to reduce the size of the federal government. The deficit for fiscal 2012 is projected to top $1 trillion for the fourth year in a row.
In fiscal 2011, the federal government spent more than $75 billion on food stamps, up from $34.6 billion at the end of fiscal 2008, according to the USDA.
"We ought to be looking for ways to save money in the program, not to encourage more people to use it," said Chris Edwards, an economist with the Cato Institute, a libertarian organization. To top of page
Comments
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Now the USPS? Inefficient sometimes (try getting mis-delivered mail sent to the right address!), but I get that they're hurting due to this electronic age. Also, the folks who deliver the mail in my area rock.
Yes. the middle class is disappearing because of many factors and trying to skirt the blame away from corporations who took their tax breaks, shipped the jobs to Asia, kept wages as low as possible and busied the people with bickering about gay marriage and reproductive rights.... Well that's kinda silly. Summing it up with "it's inflation" and the saying "inflation is a tax and taxes are theft" is absurd.
Do you think that if we just stopped taxes that inflation would disappear and we'd see a return of the middle class?
Really?
Thanks. You said it a lot nicer than I could have.
You're a funny guy. Normally you like to purposefully drop a gay theme in a reply, now you drop a Judy Garland reference like its automatic.
You're shifting all the way through this thread. I tried getting you to lock into a definition of efficiency, then you moved to productivity, then you went to saying does it meet it's supposed goal, then saying it's not efficient because it doesn't meet what goal you applied to it, then it's input vs. nutritional output, then maybe giving what the qualification for food stamps means it's inefficient? then back to the DMV where efficiency is measured by how long people have to wait in line. Maybe we can sort this out? You made the claim that the private world is more efficient than the government world, so I'm just wondering how that's such a solid fact in your mind.
My DMV visits were in 3 cities, small, medium, and large. Maybe you're suggesting that long lines happen where there are more people, but not enough DMV locations to cover the load. They probably keep the number of branches lower to, you know, save tax payer money.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Sometimes I've been able to get those flat rate boxes to my folks 2000 miles away in two days. Four is the longest.
My experiences have been the same, Go Beavers, at least for the last 20 years. From the time I got my first drivers license in 1968 until the mid nineties the DMV could be problematic at times. But in the last 15 to 20 years I've never had a single hassle with DMV.
Again, this is an agency some people laugh at or complain about but looking at the enormous amount of work they accomplish and the benefit many if not most of us derive from it- that being the privilege to drive- we should be thankful. I think anyone complaining about DMV should have their license revoked. Don't like the system? Walk, take a bus or a train, learn to ride a horse- besides which, all of those means of transportation are better for the planet anyway.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Monopolies are clearly an issue. Competition is key.
However, did you stop and think that perhaps when it was gov't run, taxes were subsidizing your electric bill? And, isn't it more appropriate that folks pay for what they use? That may even result in folks using less and saving the environment.
Keeping prices low is not necessarily the best thing, nor does it indicate efficiency. (How much of our tax dollars are not supporting the USPS? Yes, the privatized companies cost more. But, if I absolutely, positively need it there overnight, I do not use USPS. Plus, with electronic communications, do I need my tax dollars supporting an effectively bankrupt organization? That's what folks mean by the USPS being inefficient. A few of you have interpreted that completely incorrectly.)
Now, I'm not saying the resulting prices are right, either. I have no idea. I'd need to study up more on the examply you provide. But, to say the gov't was MORE efficient or the BEST for this business is certainly not the conclusion I draw from your example.
With monopolies, some oversight is necessary. But, I'd still prefer private enterprise over the gov't running most anything.
Talking about moving goal posts. Ha ha.
Let’s recap our discussion here:
I originally asked: Why does government do charity work best? And went into why I don’t think they do. I also asked why do some here equate ALL people who disagree with "government" forms of welfare, as people who hate the poor? Etc.
You responded saying : Look at food stamps. Administrative costs are kept low, where do you identify inefficiency in how it's run?
I responded to your question of how food stamps are efficient: Showing you this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o64Fz-KW1Dk
…, talking about how easy it easy to get in the program and what type of food you can buy. I also responded to a number of your other points, PROBABLY MOST IMPORTANTLY – I responded to your question on how one measures efficiency – I said productivity. Later, I asked for a response to my original questions.
You responded saying: I’m shifting the goal posts in regards to government efficiency. You said “if it’s defined by productivity, then stay with it, but then you reference what you can get on food stamps and what it takes to qualify, and this is based on one anecdotal story about your friend. How to qualify for food stamps and what you can get on them is a different topic.”
I responded to your point with a detailed analysis of why how you qualify for food stamps and what you get on them is very relevant to productivity (which I had already shown can be used to measure efficiency). Efficiency is defined as use of resources (or inputs) to “produce” an output (in food stamps it’s a service). So, I went into some specifics about that output. What is we want? We want to minimize the desire for the use of food stamps, but when they are used we want to use the minimum resources (our tax $) in order to get the best result or output (poor people who get relatively healthy food). I showed explicitly why each of these are violated. And I explained why they aren’t productive at all. Remember productivity was a measure you said “to stick with “ as a proxy for efficiency. But, I just showed you why they aren’t efficient too.
Then you respond and say “you’ve been shifting through this entire thread – I tried to get you to lock into a definition of efficiency, then you moved to productivity, then you went to saying does it meet it's supposed goal, then saying it's not efficient because it doesn't meet what goal you applied to it, then it's input vs. nutritional output, then maybe giving what the qualification for food stamps means it's inefficient?” blah blah… Later on you try to change the subject.
So, here I am, left scratching my head. You didn’t address a single word that I wrote. I showed you why you were very, very wrong in regards to food stamps being efficient. Meanwhile, your response is – nonsensical and dodging. You didn’t address one of my points.
My points had to do with efficiency all along. When you asked how to get at efficiency I said we could look at productivity. When I think of productivity I think of how much output we get out of an input. I showed you that the definition of efficiency is similar to that. Here it is again - efficiency refers to the use of resources so as to maximize (or minimize) the production (or costs) of goods and services. Then I showed you why we don’t get a lot of what we want or output from the input we put in. We’re not benefiting from food stamps being used on Doritos and Soda. Further, were not benefiting from our resource or input (our tax $) when less expensive items that are also healthier (like chicken and vegetables) could be consumed FOR LESS MONEY! Finally, we’re not benefiting from our input (our tax $) when there is constant, alarming growth in the use of these food stamps. In that aspect, this is a minimization problem, not a maximization problem. We dont want a boatload of people on these programs, right? We want to minimize the use of this service, not maximize it. I showed you examples of how the government has this wrong. One more item I didn’t include before, but I should. Our $ is used as an input to get this poor output. That’s inefficiency, but another item to note is we have NO CHOICE in how our $ is used. Now that I’ve shown this isn’t efficient, we can’t say we think program X, Y or Z is a better place to park our loot. We have no choice whatsoever in how our input is used to create this shitty output. That’s inefficient as well.
So, here I am – left saying to you – READ MY LAST POST, WHICH DOES A MUCH BETTER JOB OF DESCRIBING ALL THIS AND FEEL FREE TO RESPOND TO IT. You asked me to show you how you were wrong about food stamps being efficient and I did. That’s all I can do. I’m not going to respond to more of your questions, when you don’t address my previous responses because they proved that you were incorrect. Why would I?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
for every person who abuses the social safety net whether it be food stamps or welfare - there is another guy who is abusing loopholes and tax shelters to avoid paying taxes ... yet, all we ever hear about is how there are all these freeloaders ...
there are always gonna be people who abuse the system ... but at the end of the day - there needs to be an incentive to not ... if you create a situation where a person can get more by being on social assistance than working 3 jobs and 70 hrs a week - well, guess what - they are gonna do what's best for them and if that means not making too much money - they are gonna do that ...
you don't solve the poverty problem or welfare abuse by increasing the prosperity gap ...
That clears up your stance better. I wouldn't say I'm very, very wrong about foodstamps being inefficient. I'm looking at it as money in vs. money (in the form of food) out, which it does well. You're looking at it as money in, nutrition and how many are on it as the output. You seem to be letting other ideological issues bleed into whether you see it as efficient, like saying it's too easy to get on food stamps. Are you saying there should be more barriers and more hoops to jump through? If requirements were heightened, that wouldn't make it any more or less efficient, it would just make it so fewer people were on it. There's more people on it now because of the economy. It also seems like there's an ideological disagreement with allowing people the freedom to choose what to buy with their food stamps. I can see your point there, but I'm more comfortable with the government allowing the individual freedom to make choices for themselves.
Again, it sounds like where we're diverging is I'm looking at foodstamp efficiency in how it's delivered and the process of when the person applies to when they get it and then how it's maintained. You seem to be applying different measurement devices to efficiency. You also haven't made a case for how the private sector would be more efficient.
You said I avoided several of your points earlier. I'll look through the thread more later on.
But, it doesn't do that well at all. I showed you an example. A family can eat a full nutritious (although this word is not important) meal for about $3. Chicken, veggies - water (free). Meanwhile, a bag of Doritos costs about $3 - if you add soda and other crap - you could be looking at $10. If you can admit there's waste going on here, I don't know what to say.
I looked at in a number of ways. I looked at it the efficiency of the money spent. The $ in, the $ out. I looked at it as the efficiency of the output. What do we hope to achieve with this service? That showed that we're not doing a good job - people are eating shit, and are encouraged to. Then I looked at it as what's the goal? We don't want tons of people on this, being dependent on it. We want it as a cushion for those who need it TEMPORARILY! That's not happening either. I showed you that the government is actually advertising that illegals can get on this program.
Ha ha... I love how you say other people are ideological and letting that bleed into their line of thinking. You're defense of the EFFICIENCY of food stamps, isn't ideological? ha ha.... you crack me up. I don't even think a rational Democratic congressman who was off the record and being honest would say food stamps are "efficient". Yet, here you are trying to pretend they are.
Anyway, let me answer - I'm saying - that food stamps are inefficient. The goal is to provide a cushion, they don't - they provide a figurative mattress with extra niceties. The goal is to not let people starve to death - not to give them name brand junk food. Another goal is to not spend excess money (of ours) on this, but I've showed you they do. For example, why the F do we subsidize soda or Doritos?
You don't get it. We don't want people on it forever - it's a minimization problem. That doesn't mean we kick them off, we just don't give them incentives to stay on. For example, if they had to buy chicken and fruit and vegetables and that's it - that will keep them healthy and alive, yet they may get tired of that and be incentivized to get off.
Did you watch that video? That showed some think it's a fucking joke to use our tax money and the cards associated like it's a fucking college meal plan card. It's not - it's our tax money. The purpose is to keep people alive, not starve to death that sort of thing. Not provide luxury junk food.
No shit. Let's focus on fixing that. That's the problem.
Ha ha, how about the people who are fucking paying for it? They don't deserve the same freedom of choice as the consumer who's getting free money? They can't say hey - I'll give you X, Y or Z in terms of food? I mean A, B and C are more expensive and worse for the peoples health.
Further, since your so into individual freedom I assume you'd be ok if they buy alcohol then? Seriously, answer that. How about cigarettes? You're more comfortable with the government allowing the individual freedom to make choices for themselves? Why can't they buy that stuff? Please answer, don't just brush it under the rug and ignore.
Your definition is off for a number of reasons, but I believe you know that. Even if it was completely 100% correct, I've already showed you "waste" is involved. Unnecessary expenses are involved. We are not getting our bang for our buck that we could. That's not efficient.
I'm applying "The DEFINITION" of efficiency. Minimum input to achieve maximum output. I defined each, and even gave a number of caveats to each.
As for private sector, companies would be more efficient because they would have no choice. If they wasted money, an alternative service provider could be used instead - and their profits would decline and threaten their very existance. I wouldn't deny that full efficiency may not be achieved, but it certainly would be improved because of THE INCENTIVES private market has. Further, not only would it be more efficient service-wise or bang for buck, in the private world we, as tax payers, could also CHOOSE which service we prefer to help the poor. No dictation. Choice - which you just said you're all for, right? This would encourage competition AND better service, which would also restrict waste. Finally, with these services in mind, a private enterprise most likely would encourage COST SAVINGS. So, what's that mean? Well, they most likely would try to help those who need care to only need it temporarily. All the above is not achieved by gov't.
Fair enough.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Great post! Your point about needing an incentive reminds me of Barbara Ehrenreich's excellent book, Nickel and Dimed. Here's a good, quick synopsis:
http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/nickelanddimed.htm
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Technically, That was an L. Frank Baum reference. I was talking about the book and not that silly movie.
are you implying that energy markets are free?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I hear about rich people skirting taxes every day...
not sure why you would say all we ever hear about are all these free loaders...
you won't get an argument from me, corporate welfare needs to end as well.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
This is not entirely true in all cases. I'm 100% behind handouts for people who need them. I participate in giving handouts every week.
What I'm opposed to is the government managing the handout process.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Amen. I'm definitely not anti-poor, I'm just anti-government.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'm sure you'll say that I'm missing what you're saying or something to that effect, but do you realize that with your definition of how to measure the efficiency of food stamps, that your conclusion that it's inefficient will always be correct, no matter what is changed with the program. The line can always be moved to make it harder to get on, and the amount can be reduced. Why give a guy $200 a month? Why not 150, or $100? Lets put more limits on what can be bought. Based on your definition, it could still be labelled inefficient. Let's put more limits on what can be bought, and limit the time. Now lets just do an air drop of dry goods on the edge of town (an idea proposed in AMT). Even that final idea would fit your definition of inefficient, because you don't have a goal or measurement identified that would be acceptable. In your measurement, you can always say that there should be fewer people on food stamps, that less should be spent on it, and that better food should be purchased while on it. I obviously don't operate in the business world, but I imagine when they talk about productivity, they identify specific goals, and contained in those goals are specifics related to costs and output. At the end of the timeframe, they could look at the numbers and tell if the goal was reached. In your proposal, it seems like your just saying: the less spent on it and the fewer people on it, the more efficient it is.
Wanting to be able to chose how your tax dollars should be spent on the poor is just another way of saying that someone should be able to have the government just be a reflection of their individual values. Some people think a huge military is necessary, I don't. Can I divert my tax dollars somewhere else? You're sticking with your view that private sector always does better than the public sector, but in the case of public assistance, there's also some apples and oranges happening.
Cigarettes and alcohol isn't food.
I don't remember anyone saying that the government does charity work "best". I guess you're saying that private charities are best? Obviously they're different and go about delivery of services differently. I talked in some other post about follow up and checks with regard to public assistance.
Some people equate people who disagree with welfare as hating the poor because there's a certain level of disdain that comes through while they try to back up their position. People who argue against welfare seldom make intelligent arguments and instead try to support what they're saying with beliefs rooted in myths and stereotypes. You know, like how 'most' food stamp money in spent on convenience store junk food, that people on public assistance live comfortable lives, that it encourages dependency, that they're on it permanently, and that those people just need to go get a job. Then they drop in the anecdotal story about their friend or uncle who had a neighbor who abused the system as if to say that this is the majority of recipients. People who also disagree with public assistance also talk in a way about recipients as though they should be shamed when accessing services. They tend to lack empathy, and also tend to attribute their success with inflating their individual efforts and down play or deny their interconnectedness that contributed to their success. Therefore, they conclude that everyone has the same opportunity they had, and if they just worked hard and put forth effort, they could be financially successful just like themselves.
i don't see any threads about rich people taking advantage of the system ... and i'm not even talking about corporate welfare ...
edit: it's pretty crazy what some people will go to jail for yet all these corporations on wall street who committed fraud haven't been charged with anything ...
Is soda food? Alcohol seems as much food or drink as soda?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I feel like you're trying not to understand what I'm saying. The definition of efficiency is the definition of efficiency. Just because you said food stamps are efficient and I tried to show you they weren't using the definition, doesn't mean the definition has problems. It means your original statement has problems.
But, let's back up. There's a number of ways to look at efficiency here, I tried to address all of them. But, the most logical one - "bang for your buck". Min inputs in to max output. Efficiency.... I stressed already that $ are the inputs. The output is questionable, but let's go with most people served given inputs. I showed you could actually feed more people (output) with less money (input). They are wasting money on high-ticket stuff like Doritos and soda, when chicken and canned vegetables/fruit and water is cheaper. This is a problem of efficiency. The bang for the buck is not working - it's not efficient.
There are others where output definitions change which I also went over.
Government should be a reflection of individual values. They are a representative body.
In the ideal setting, yes you should be able to have a say in how your tax dollars are spent. It seems to me that you're saying that an individual citizen, should have no say whatsoever in how their money is spent. I think that's pretty sick, personally. I get that we operate in a representative democracy, but your say is your vote. Hopefully, one day your money won't need to be spent on x and mine won't be need to be spent on y, if we'd prefer it to be spent elsewhere. I actually think that's a great idea. Problem is government won't ever do that.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Government wants more people on food stamps
By Tami Luhby @CNNMoney June 25, 2012: 5:17 AM ET
The federal government is running radio ads to boost enrollment in food stamps.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- More than one in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the federal government wants even more people to sign up for the safety net program.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been running radio ads for the past four months encouraging those eligible to enroll. The campaign is targeted at the elderly, working poor, the unemployed and Hispanics.
The department is spending between $2.5 million and $3 million on paid spots, and free public service announcements are also airing. The campaign can be heard in California, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, and the New York metro area.
"Research has shown that many people -- particularly underserved seniors, working poor, and legal immigrants -- do not understand the requirements of the program," said Kevin Concannon, a USDA under secretary.
The radio ads, which run through June 30, come amid a bitter partisan fight over the safety net program. Republican lawmakers want to reduce funding for the benefit or turn it into a block grant program, which would also minimize the cost. Democrats, however, are not willing to make major cuts.
The issue has become so heated that Newt Gingrich called President Obama the "food stamp president" to show how he's increased government spending.
Food stamp enrollment certainly shot up during the Great Recession, though it had been rising for more than a decade.
President Bush launched a recruitment campaign, which pushed average participation up by 63% during his eight years in office. The USDA began airing paid radio spots in 2004.
President Obama's stimulus act made it easier for childless, jobless adults to qualify for the program and increased the monthly benefit by about 15% through 2013.
Getting off government assistance
Some 46.4 million people are in the food stamps program, also known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. That's just a touch below the record high hit in January.
Still, more than one in four Americans eligible for food stamps do not participate, according to USDA records.
And the rate is much lower among the the elderly and people just above the poverty line. Nearly two-thirds of folks in these categories aren't enrolled.
In one ad, an elderly woman is surprised to learn that her friend is on food stamps. The friend explains that now that she's retired and on a fixed income, the program "helps me eat right when money's tight."
"Millions of low-income seniors struggle to afford life's necessities like food and medicine," said Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Enrolling in SNAP can help ease that struggle."
Deficit hawks, however, don't want to see the government spend more money on food stamps at a time when lawmakers are trying to reduce the size of the federal government. The deficit for fiscal 2012 is projected to top $1 trillion for the fourth year in a row.
In fiscal 2011, the federal government spent more than $75 billion on food stamps, up from $34.6 billion at the end of fiscal 2008, according to the USDA.
"We ought to be looking for ways to save money in the program, not to encourage more people to use it," said Chris Edwards, an economist with the Cato Institute, a libertarian organization. To top of page
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="