The time I took a Government "Handout"

polaris_x wrote:

there is a great stat that says that basically if the world lived like americans - we would need 4.1 times the resources the world has now ...

the economists type never factor in the sustainability component ... it's all about growth ...

Who created this "stat"? Why do you believe it? It's incomprehensible and impossible in this day and age to model unknown resources. We've gone over this in the past.

inlet13 wrote:

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).

brianlux wrote:

I really don't mean to sound like I'm name-dropping inlet but I have corresponded with researchers who have quoted statistics similar or the same as the one polaris_x quoted- Bill McKibben, Richard Manning, Wendell Berry a friend who teaches entomology who has also studied sustainability, a brother-in-law who is a tree geneticist and has spent countless hours working with others who study and understand concepts like renewable natural resources. All of these people have studied and worked with a much larger body of people who understand the limits of resources. These are not people who make up shit. They're all excellent researchers. To ignore what they are telling us would be foolish.

Said it before, I'll say it again. It's a f'ing statistical model. And they are modeling the "unknown" as a dependent variable. It's impossible to do that. Moreover, anyone who even tries has an agenda.

inlet13 wrote:

Thanks for providing us permission to donate. :fp: This is exactly the issue. Why can't we decide how or if we want to "donate"? Why does the US government, that is horribly inefficient enough to have more debt than our entire economy, get to tell us how they plan to solve this issue? I don't trust them... get it through your head. I agree this is an issue, but they won't EVER solve it.

On your point - When people get a "stimulus" the economy is most likely hurting. Lots of people focus on themselves in those times, because their own personal family is hurting. Like I've said in other threads, it's the economy - stupid. That's the problem.

I don't care what the "conservative" pom-pom waving argument is, nor do I care how you interpret it with your liberal pom-poms waving as being wrong. Both sides are sheep and can't think independently.

I have "my own" questions on this issue for this thread which were pretty much bipassed, these questions may look familiar:

I should probably be the one doing the eye rolls and laughys after reading this. You're shifting the goal posts in you response regarding government efficiency. 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. Being able to provide this relatively quickly and efficiently with low admin costs is on topic. You don't seem to know much about public assistance, so maybe you should be open to learning more. By the way, it says "EBT cash" as an option for those who receive cash tanf (referred to earlier), food stamps is not cash. You can access both with one card in order to be more 'efficient'.

I think you said you are an educator, so therefore it seems like you should be open to looking at things differently, rather than just adhering to you rule that private is always more efficient than public. Some things should be left to the private market, and some things left to the government to do, and somethings work when there's overlap.

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?

Go Beavers wrote:

I should probably be the one doing the eye rolls and laughys after reading this. You're shifting the goal posts in you response regarding government efficiency. 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.


Being able to provide this relatively quickly and efficiently with low admin costs is on topic. You don't seem to know much about public assistance, so maybe you should be open to learning more. By the way, it says "EBT cash" as an option for those who receive cash tanf (referred to earlier), food stamps is not cash. You can access both with one card in order to be more 'efficient'.

I think you said you are an educator, so therefore it seems like you should be open to looking at things differently, rather than just adhering to you rule that private is always more efficient than public. Some things should be left to the private market, and some things left to the government to do, and somethings work when there's overlap.

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.

This is not productive, bro. Not at all.

Go Beavers wrote:

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.

brianlux wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

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.

inlet13 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

inlet13 wrote:

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.

This is not productive, bro. Not at all.

Go Beavers wrote:

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.

brianlux wrote:

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.