2016 Presidential Horse Race

[RDU Irish]

A message for my fellow Republicans: If you back Trump you will not be trusted again | Fox News

LMFAO!!! Like Joe Isuzu saying he doesn't trust the used car buyer. Is this a f-ing joke? Do these hacks really fashion themselves Captain America or what?

 

[EddytoNow]

Well this just has everything.....

Trump-backing tow truck driver refuses to tow a Sanders supporter.

"When he saw 'a bunch of Bernie Sanders stuff' he said he told the woman, 'very politely,' " that he could not "tow her car because she was 'obviously a socialist' and advised her to 'call the government' for a tow."

"Something came over me, I think the Lord came to me, and he just said get in the truck and leave," Shupe said. "And when I got in my truck, you know, I was so proud, because I felt like I finally drew a line in the sand and stood up for what I believed."

“I own the truck. The side of my truck says ‘Shupe.’ It doesn’t say ‘freebie,'" he said. "You know, and every time I’ve dealt with these people in recent history, I get burned. With an “E,’ not a ‘U.’”

The Sanders supporter is Ms. McWade, 25, and has psoriatic arthritis, fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and early-stage Crohns, making her time on the road without a bathroom nearby a “terrifying” experience, she told ABC News. She is legally disabled and said her handicapped placard was hanging from her rearview mirror.
Mr. Shupe said he didn’t know that Ms. McWade was disabled, but said it wouldn’t have changed his mind not to tow her.

“Had she been disabled, would I have towed her car? No ma’am. I would have pulled forward and sat there with her to make sure she was OK until another wrecker service showed up to get her home safely, but I still would not have towed her car,” he told ABC News. “I stand by my decision, and I would do it again today if the opportunity presented itself.”

Quotes pulled from multiple posts...



I give up.

The bolded part says it all. Bigotry (in this case against the handicapped) is alive and well.

 

[Irish YJ]

The bolded part says it all. Bigotry (in this case against the handicapped) is alive and well.

Drama...
Didn't he say he didn't know the lady was handicap and he would have stayed with her had he know? "These people" I thought referred to Sanders people.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Why the Democratic Establishment Is Wearing Romney Beer Goggles | Mediaite

This is a good read warning people (Clinton Dems, in particular) that Trump can and will destroy her (not neccessarily beat her and win the election...but he will beat her up). This blog sums up all of my fears and why I've been against Clinton as the nominee for months. Clinton against Trump...even worse idea, imo, because it lays legitimacy to a scenario in which he actually wins. Great job Democractic Establishment....great fucking job...

 

[Irish#1]

 

[Irish#1]

Drama...
Didn't he say he didn't know the lady was handicap and he would have stayed with her had he know? "These people" I thought referred to Sanders people.

That's how I read it.

 

[Irish YJ]

Why the Democratic Establishment Is Wearing Romney Beer Goggles | Mediaite

This is a good read warning people (Clinton Dems, in particular) that Trump can and will destroy her (not neccessarily beat her and win the election...but he will beat her up). This blog sums up all of my fears and why I've been against Clinton as the nominee for months. Clinton against Trump...even worse idea, imo, because it lays legitimacy to a scenario in which he actually wins. Great job Democractic Establishment....great fucking job...

Both sides are so F'd up, it's sad. I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the entertainment. This is an outstanding opportunity for both parties to step back and reflect. The real tragedy will be, if in 2020, they have not learned anything from the circus of 2016.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Drama...
Didn't he say he didn't know the lady was handicap and he would have stayed with her had he know? "These people" I thought referred to Sanders people.

quote before that speaks to freebies, I took it as people asking him for discounts on tows and such

 

[NorthDakota]

I'd take that deal every day of the week.

And I understand we can't quit the welfare state cold turkey. I believe my preferred economic policies would make it largely obsolete. Instead of debating whether almsgiving should be public or private, I'd rather see focus placed on reducing the amount of assistance that's necessary in the first place. One big problem with that is that our sense of proportionality is all out of whack in a nation so prosperous. The "suffering" of a poor American in 2016 isn't suffering at all by global or historical standards.

Yeah I can't recall the last time I heard anything about children starving in the United States...other than maybe some
mentally-ill mother starving their child.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Yeah I can't recall the last time I heard anything about children starving in the United States...other than maybe some
mentally-ill mother starving their child.

Umm what?

Hunger Facts & Poverty Statistics | Feeding America®

Wiz made that same ignorant comment a long time ago in this thread. It doesn't matter if "the suffering of a poor American in 2016 isn't suffering at all by global or historical standards," kids are still living in poverty and still hungry. Seriously, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Oh you're hungry? Well you're not "Somali-hungry" so get over it and consider yourself lucky, kid.

 

[Wild Bill]

Umm what?

Hunger Facts & Poverty Statistics | Feeding America®

Wiz made that same ignorant comment a long time ago in this thread. It doesn't matter if "the suffering of a poor American in 2016 isn't suffering at all by global or historical standards," kids are still living in poverty and still hungry. Seriously, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Oh you're hungry? Well you're not "Somali-hungry" so get over it and consider yourself lucky, kid.

I don't doubt that it occurs but I suspect it's due to complete negligence by the parent and not the lack of subsidies available.

 

[wizards8507]

Umm what?

Hunger Facts & Poverty Statistics | Feeding America®

Wiz made that same ignorant comment a long time ago in this thread. It doesn't matter if "the suffering of a poor American in 2016 isn't suffering at all by global or historical standards," kids are still living in poverty and still hungry. Seriously, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Oh you're hungry? Well you're not "Somali-hungry" so get over it and consider yourself lucky, kid.

Come on, you're smarter than that. I shouldn't have to preface every single comment I make with "I know there are exceptions but..." to make a generally true statement about a topic. Whiskeyjack and I were talking about the modern American welfare state. Go through the census figures. A majority of people in poverty have computers. A vast majority of people in poverty in poverty have vehicles, air conditioning, cell phones, and cable television. Yes, there is hunger and legitimate suffering on the poorest tail of the distribution and those people need compassion, but I'm sick of hearing about the "suffering" of the people who aren't suffering.

 

[NorthDakota]

I don't doubt that it occurs but I suspect it's due to complete negligence by the parent and not the lack of subsidies available.

This. Danke, Wild Bill.

 

[NDRock]

Come on, you're smarter than that. I shouldn't have to preface every single comment I make with "I know there are exceptions but..." to make a generally true statement about a topic. Whiskeyjack and I were talking about the modern American welfare state. Go through the census figures. A majority of people in poverty have computers. A vast majority of people in poverty in poverty have vehicles, air conditioning, cell phones, and cable television. Yes, there is hunger and legitimate suffering on the poorest tail of the distribution and those people need compassion, but I'm sick of hearing about the "suffering" of the people who aren't suffering.

The problem is that you come across like most of these people have hacked the system and are living the good life. I go into the houses of these people and it's a shitshow (sometimes literally a shitshow).

I won't argue with you that it is often self-induced or that the welfare system is actually to blame for much of it but your image of these people is way off. At least in my experience with the poor in east Tennessee. Maybe the Bristol/ESPN poor are living it up.

*It may be a Connecticut thing because I laughed when Sanders said white people don't know what it's like to live in the ghetto. It's called a trailer park here, or govt. housing.

 

[wizards8507]

The problem is that you come across like most of these people have hacked the system and are living the good life. I go into the houses of these people and it's a shitshow (sometimes literally a shitshow).

I won't argue with you that it is often self-induced or that the welfare system is actually to blame for much of it but your image of these people is way off. At least in my experience with the poor in east Tennessee. Maybe the Bristol/ESPN poor are living it up.

There's a wide gap between "suffering" and "living it up." Whiskeyjack made a moral argument against suffering. I agree with him, as long as "suffering" is properly defined. I don't believe there's any moral obligation to make the poverty-stricken comfortable in their poverty.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Come on, you're smarter than that. I shouldn't have to preface every single comment I make with "I know there are exceptions but..." to make a generally true statement about a topic. Whiskeyjack and I were talking about the modern American welfare state. Go through the census figures. A majority of people in poverty have computers. A vast majority of people in poverty in poverty have vehicles, air conditioning, cell phones, and cable television. Yes, there is hunger and legitimate suffering on the poorest tail of the distribution and those people need compassion, but I'm sick of hearing about the "suffering" of the people who aren't suffering.

Understood. I get that a major problem with middle and lower class families is the inability to manage their finances (if you're broke, don't spend like you're rich). But this conversation was born out of the abortion discussion and how if we ban abortion, we need to help the mothers/children, as three-fourths of them end up on welfare. Poverty relativity isn't important here because the bottom line is these mothers were given no choice, had to have the baby, and now don't have the money to support said baby. The "Well, you shouldn't have gotten pregnant then" crowd likes to chime in here and that sentiment lacks compassion and lacks a general understanding that humans have sex, humans sometimes get pregnant even while doing everything they possibly can to prevent it. I don't care if being poor in America means you can still have a phone, car, cable TV, etc. If you're poor, you're struggling, and there's nothing wrong with helping people who have found themselves in this position. I get that conservatives may see this as enabling and you certainly have a point. But when there are kids involved, I'm sorry, I just can't get on board with making any kind of cuts to the programs that help them.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

There's a wide gap between "suffering" and "living it up." Whiskeyjack made a moral argument against suffering. I agree with him, as long as "suffering" is properly defined. I don't believe there's any moral obligation to make the poverty-stricken comfortable in their poverty.

Can you explain what you mean by this? Do you mean enabling them to stay there and just collect?

 

[dales5050]

Umm what?

Hunger Facts & Poverty Statistics | Feeding America®

Wiz made that same ignorant comment a long time ago in this thread. It doesn't matter if "the suffering of a poor American in 2016 isn't suffering at all by global or historical standards," kids are still living in poverty and still hungry. Seriously, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Oh you're hungry? Well you're not "Somali-hungry" so get over it and consider yourself lucky, kid.

The last part is where conversations like this go off the tracks.

You started off with a valid point. That being just because kids are not starving like a kid in Somali does not mean we shouldn't address the issue.

But then you take it too far by saying anyone who opposes just a blanket increase in the welfare state as someone who wants to see a kid starve and is an asshole.


Kids do go hungry in the US and it's a serious issue. That said, personally, I think there is a lot that can be done to address this issue before you even need to spend an additional penny on services.

Take a look at who the biggest lobby groups are to expand SNAP. It's not farmers. It's not nutritionists. It's MEGA food companies who are actually against health-oriented improvements to SNAP.

So when you link to something that talks about Food Insecurity, which is the state of being without reliable access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food, be ready to have an honest conversation about it.

My take is that before you expand SNAP you need to first place restrictions on any and all products that do not fall into the affordable and nutritious category. Yes, I am saying that you should block poor people from using SNAP benefits to purchase processed food, soda and all of the other shit that is currently purchased with these benefits.

Now when I say this, I am often called a heartless asshole who has no right to tell poor people what they should eat. That's just how things go these days but it does not mean I am wrong.

Maybe, just maybe, healthy and nutritious food would become just as affordable as processed shit if you blocked the ability to purchase processed shit with SNAP benefits.

 

[wizards8507]

Poverty relativity isn't important here because the bottom line is these mothers were given no choice, had to have the baby, and now don't have the money to support said baby.

That argument can be used to rationalize outright communism. You have to eat, so the government should provide food. You have to get to work, so the government should give everyone a car. You have to be healthy, so the government should buy everyone a gym membership and a Bowflex. You have to be...

It never ends. There are lots of things we "have to do" as human beings, so we go out and do them. We don't expect them to be done for us. It's just BS that government intervention is necessary to raise a child.

The "Well, you shouldn't have gotten pregnant then" crowd likes to chime in here and that sentiment lacks compassion and lacks a general understanding that humans have sex, humans sometimes get pregnant even while doing everything they possibly can to prevent it. I don't care if being poor in America means you can still have a phone, car, cable TV, etc. If you're poor, you're struggling, and there's nothing wrong with helping people who have found themselves in this position. I get that conservatives may see this as enabling and you certainly have a point. But when there are kids involved, I'm sorry, I just can't get on board with making any kind of cuts to the programs that help them.

I'd admit that I don't have a great answer about what to do for those children whose parents refuse to do what's expected of them as human beings. Like third-world warlords who intercept humanitarian aid, many parents intercept and abuse the welfare benefits that are given to them for the sake of their children.

Can you explain what you mean by this? Do you mean enabling them to stay there and just collect?

More or less. It's the difference between shelters for the homeless in a New England weather (good) versus air conditioning in the housing projects in a New England summer (bad). One is about keeping folks alive, the other is about keeping them comfortable. If poverty is comfortable, there's little motivation to escape it.

*ALL of this is with the caveat that it doesn't apply to folks who have actual physical or mental disabilities and cannot care for themselves.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

The last part is where conversations like this go off the tracks.

You started off with a valid point. That being just because kids are not starving like a kid in Somali does not mean we shouldn't address the issue.

But then you take it too far by saying anyone who opposes just a blanket increase in the welfare state as someone who wants to see a kid starve and is an asshole.


Kids do go hungry in the US and it's a serious issue. That said, personally, I think there is a lot that can be done to address this issue before you even need to spend an additional penny on services.

Take a look at who the biggest lobby groups are to expand SNAP. It's not farmers. It's not nutritionists. It's MEGA food companies who are actually against health-oriented improvements to SNAP.

So when you link to something that talks about Food Insecurity, which is the state of being without reliable access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food, be ready to have an honest conversation about it.

My take is that before you expand SNAP you need to first place restrictions on any and all products that do not fall into the affordable and nutritious category. Yes, I am saying that you should block poor people from using SNAP benefits to purchase processed food, soda and all of the other shit that is currently purchased with these benefits.

Now when I say this, I am often called a heartless asshole who has no right to tell poor people what they should eat. That's just how things go these days but it does not mean I am wrong.

Maybe, just maybe, healthy and nutritious food would become just as affordable as processed shit if you blocked the ability to purchase processed shit with SNAP benefits.

It wasn't my intent to come across the way you described so I'm sorry if that is how you read it. I'm aware there is plenty of wastefulness, plenty of fraud, plenty of areas that can be fixed, so I didn't mean to come across in a way that suggested anyone opposing these programs are assholes. And thank you for pointing out the lobbying with SNAP. I honestly hadn't given that a thorough look. I completely agree that the system shouldn't allow for unhealthy choices. If there's a way to make that happen, great. But like you said, you start treading into territory where government dictates your diet, which won't go over well with most people.

That argument can be used to rationalize outright communism. You have to eat, so the government should provide food. You have to get to work, so the government should give everyone a car. You have to be healthy, so the government should buy everyone a gym membership and a Bowflex. You have to be...

It never ends. There are lots of things we "have to do" as human beings, so we go out and do them. We don't expect them to be done for us. It's just BS that government intervention is necessary to raise a child.


I'd admit that I don't have a great answer about what to do for those children whose parents refuse to do what's expected of them as human beings. Like third-world warlords who intercept humanitarian aid, many parents intercept and abuse the welfare benefits that are given to them for the sake of their children.


More or less. It's the difference between shelters for the homeless in a New England weather (good) versus air conditioning in the housing projects in a New England summer (bad). One is about keeping folks alive, the other is about keeping them comfortable. If poverty is comfortable, there's little motivation to escape it.

*ALL of this is with the caveat that it doesn't apply to folks who have actual physical or mental disabilities and cannot care for themselves.

I see what you're saying regarding "comfort." Makes perfect sense.

Perhaps it's a better angle for me if I suggested that we need these programs. We can't get rid of them or cut them. But there are definitely ways to improve on them. Would we agree on that common ground? Because to be perfectly honest, maybe I come across as a socialist-loving liberal, but the truth is, there are plenty of areas where I'm pretty center (sometimes center-right, sometimes center-left) and see the good and bad with each plan.

 

[dales5050]

Perhaps it's a better angle for me if I suggested that we need these programs. We can't get rid of them or cut them. But there are definitely ways to improve on them. Would we agree on that common ground? Because to be perfectly honest, maybe I come across as a socialist-loving liberal, but the truth is, there are plenty of areas where I'm pretty center (sometimes center-right, sometimes center-left) and see the good and bad with each plan.

Agree 100% that we need them. We need programs for the poor. We need programs for the unemployed. We need programs for senior citizens. You can't be considered a civilized society without them. But at the same time it's simply not responsible to have these programs or to expand these programs in the hope that they will improve the issue or improve the outcome without scrutiny.

I think the biggest challenge that 'we' face is the manipulation that is done to all of us by the various 'powers' that are involved in these programs in every role outside of a beneficiary. Too often we paint someone of the opposite position as an extreme because we have reduced our ability for discourse to the point where centrists are suffocated. I know I am guilty of this as well.

I am for SNAP but I don't think you should be able to buy shit food. I am tried of being told I want kids to starve because I dislike their parents feeding them junk food.

I am for Public Housing but I think that people in public housing shouldn't have the same rights as property owners and public housing should be manipulated with the dual goal of providing safe housing and what's best for the tax base. I am tired of being told I want people to sleep on the streets because of this.

I am for Education but I think the money should be spent on kids rather than pensions. I am tired of being told I don't care about education when teacher unions do nothing to fix the bloated pension structures that are a huge issue.

I am for Health Care but I think you should look to make it as cheap as possible. I am tired of being told I want old people to die because I don't care.

I have, what I think are, logical and reasonable positions on most everything from the above to issues like immigration and personal liberties to men's and women's rights and religious freedom. I am sad that it's no longer reasonable to be reasonable and logical.

 

[Irish#1]

Yeah I can't recall the last time I heard anything about children starving in the United States...other than maybe some
mentally-ill mother starving their child.

Umm what?

Hunger Facts & Poverty Statistics | Feeding America®

Wiz made that same ignorant comment a long time ago in this thread. It doesn't matter if "the suffering of a poor American in 2016 isn't suffering at all by global or historical standards," kids are still living in poverty and still hungry. Seriously, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Oh you're hungry? Well you're not "Somali-hungry" so get over it and consider yourself lucky, kid.

I don't doubt that it occurs but I suspect it's due to complete negligence by the parent and not the lack of subsidies available.

Quoting "Foreign Affairs Quarterly", in todays version of "An American Story", Tom Brokaw stated that extreme poverty has been cut in half in the last sixteen years. There have been 4 million fewer infant deaths world-wide int he last 15 years.

Of course these are still problems, but it looks like a lot of progress is being made.

 

[pkt77242]

Come on, you're smarter than that. I shouldn't have to preface every single comment I make with "I know there are exceptions but..." to make a generally true statement about a topic. Whiskeyjack and I were talking about the modern American welfare state. Go through the census figures. A majority of people in poverty have computers. A vast majority of people in poverty in poverty have vehicles, air conditioning, cell phones, and cable television. Yes, there is hunger and legitimate suffering on the poorest tail of the distribution and those people need compassion, but I'm sick of hearing about the "suffering" of the people who aren't suffering.

So? A poor person shouldn't have a cell phone? How many of those are the cheap phones where they buy minutes? How are future employers supposed to get a hold of them? Before you say landline, remember that you can get cheap phones for similar cost to a landline now.

As to computers, most jobs now require that you apply online, so computers are helpful, also poor children still need access to computers to learn computer skills and if they don't then they will just fall farther and farther behind their peers. A computer is not a luxury in our current society.

*Saying it is a cheap computer, if they have a Mac Book then it is a different story but if they have a $200 chrombebook that is 3 years old, then something like that is almost a necessity if you want them or their children to try and escape poverty.

Also you talk about them having vehicles but what are the vehicles they are driving, if they are driving a 15-20 year old nissan truck that cost them $200, then again, why does it bother you, you do want them to go to work right? Again if they are driving a new Camry (or heck even a few year old Camry) then I get your complaint.
I don't get upset seeing poor people driving things like this.

 

[wizards8507]

So? A poor person shouldn't have a cell phone? How many of those are the cheap phones where they buy minutes? How are future employers supposed to get a hold of them? Before you say landline, remember that you can get cheap phones for similar cost to a landline now.

As to computers, most jobs now require that you apply online, so computers are helpful, also poor children still need access to computers to learn computer skills and if they don't then they will just fall farther and farther behind their peers. A computer is not a luxury in our current society.

*Saying it is a cheap computer, if they have a Mac Book then it is a different story but if they have a $200 chrombebook that is 3 years old, then something like that is almost a necessity if you want them or their children to try and escape poverty.

Also you talk about them having vehicles but what are the vehicles they are driving, if they are driving a 15-20 year old nissan truck that cost them $200, then again, why does it bother you, you do want them to go to work right? Again if they are driving a new Camry (or heck even a few year old Camry) then I get your complaint.
I don't get upset seeing poor people driving things like this.

I don't have a problem that poor people have these things. However, I also don't consider a grave moral issue or human rights violation if they don't have these things.

 

[ACamp1900]

The way I've always seen it... the vast majority of these programs aren't needed in their current, massive form, and only exist as such to hook up big money food, unions, housing investors who make killings off section 8, you name it. I don't see it as helping the poor, I see it (in it's current form) as using the poor as pawns in the chess game of "tax dollar cookie jar".. anyone criticize the game, then use 'the poor' as a card to attack the often valid criticism. If we really cared about their health and well being it would make much more sense to provide base, healthy food and aid to people who need it and cap it at that, rather than allow them easy, free, access to stuff like Red Hot Cheetos... but Frito Lay paid off their politicians too, so it wouldn't be fair to deny them their cut.

 

[dales5050]

I'll bite...

So? A poor person shouldn't have a cell phone? How many of those are the cheap phones where they buy minutes? How are future employers supposed to get a hold of them? Before you say landline, remember that you can get cheap phones for similar cost to a landline now.

So are you opposed to say restricting the funds to provide cell phones to specific models of phones? In other words, you can't use a smart phone and you can't have a plan that includes data or text messages?

If it's just for emergencies and employment opportunities you don't need any of the above.

As to computers, most jobs now require that you apply online, so computers are helpful, also poor children still need access to computers to learn computer skills and if they don't then they will just fall farther and farther behind their peers. A computer is not a luxury in our current society.

*Saying it is a cheap computer, if they have a Mac Book then it is a different story but if they have a $200 chrombebook that is 3 years old, then something like that is almost a necessity if you want them or their children to try and escape poverty.

Agree with this. Internet access and a working computer are required.

Also you talk about them having vehicles but what are the vehicles they are driving, if they are driving a 15-20 year old nissan truck that cost them $200, then again, why does it bother you, you do want them to go to work right? Again if they are driving a new Camry (or heck even a few year old Camry) then I get your complaint.
I don't get upset seeing poor people driving things like this.

This last part, really your whole message with variances, is the issue for many.

One side says there are people who shouldn't have an iPhone, MacBook and drive a new car if they are getting assistance.

The other side says you need a working phone, a working computer, a working vehicle and internet access. Which is also valid.

It's the gap that's the problem. It's the people that scam the system that's the problem. We all know it exists and I am not even sure it's plausible to create tools to truly attack the abuse. Personally, I would just settle for an honest public conversation about it. I would be happy if the logic and reason you presented was said by the public officials who run the system.


Let me ask you this question. What if the US government were to work out a contract with a companies like Google, ISPs and cell providers to provide the necessary solutions but also come with restrictions?

You could create a program where internet access was provided to homes but sites like Netflix would be blocked. If your address has this internet program you would not be able to purchase any form of paid cable. OTA antennas would be provided as well.

The ISPs would unlock a massive amount of new customers who would be paid directly from the Federal government but at the same time not be able to sell cable to them. A tradeoff for sure.

Google could build a streamlined Chromebook that would come with all of the necessary software for education and employment purposes in the home but you would not be able to install things like games or use sites like Hulu or Netflix.

Google would unlock a similar market and be able to help people get a leg up.

The phone companies could create a phone plan that only used a device that had access to only make calls. No data or texting would be possible. Same as the above on the benefits.



The above seems like a logical way to provide the tools people need but I am positive people would get their panties in a bunch and call it hating on the poor.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump's Hispanic outreach strategy: <a href="https://t.co/8Ji9QT1Bp5">https://t.co/8Ji9QT1Bp5</a></p>— Reihan Salam (@reihan) <a href="https://twitter.com/reihan/status/728609298322984960">May 6, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[pkt77242]

I'll bite...



So are you opposed to say restricting the funds to provide cell phones to specific models of phones? In other words, you can't use a smart phone and you can't have a plan that includes data or text messages?

If it's just for emergencies and employment opportunities you don't need any of the above.



Agree with this. Internet access and a working computer are required.




This last part, really your whole message with variances, is the issue for many.

One side says there are people who shouldn't have an iPhone, MacBook and drive a new car if they are getting assistance.

The other side says you need a working phone, a working computer, a working vehicle and internet access. Which is also valid.

It's the gap that's the problem. It's the people that scam the system that's the problem. We all know it exists and I am not even sure it's plausible to create tools to truly attack the abuse. Personally, I would just settle for an honest public conversation about it. I would be happy if the logic and reason you presented was said by the public officials who run the system.


Let me ask you this question. What if the US government were to work out a contract with a companies like Google, ISPs and cell providers to provide the necessary solutions but also come with restrictions?

You could create a program where internet access was provided to homes but sites like Netflix would be blocked. If your address has this internet program you would not be able to purchase any form of paid cable. OTA antennas would be provided as well.

The ISPs would unlock a massive amount of new customers who would be paid directly from the Federal government but at the same time not be able to sell cable to them. A tradeoff for sure.

Google could build a streamlined Chromebook that would come with all of the necessary software for education and employment purposes in the home but you would not be able to install things like games or use sites like Hulu or Netflix.

Google would unlock a similar market and be able to help people get a leg up.

The phone companies could create a phone plan that only used a device that had access to only make calls. No data or texting would be possible. Same as the above on the benefits.



The above seems like a logical way to provide the tools people need but I am positive people would get their panties in a bunch and call it hating on the poor.

I don't call it hating on the poor. I think that conservatives are searching for a solution to a question (how can we cut down on the massive fraud and abuse in government assistance) that doesn't exist. The error rate (includes over payment, underpayment, abuse, fraud, etc) for programs like SNAP are about 3%. That is pretty damn good. Do you know who causes most of the errors, hint it isn't the recipients. Most of the errors are the caseworkers making mistakes.

Of course there is some high profile cases of people gaming the system (more often than not middle class or rich people taking advantage of it) such as the person caught in Arizona recently driving a Mercedes while on Medicaid, so lets punish those people instead of creating even more rules. Something like 99% of poor people are using the programs as they are meant to be, lets not try to create a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist (in any magnitude worth fixing).

 

[ACamp1900]

I worked my way through college in a low income Kroger grocery store... fraud is a major issue...a large portion of our clients were welfare recipients gaming the system. Multiple carts in one trip, each cart paid for with some form of EBT card from a different state... often enough the recipient in question was driving some form of luxury or high end car. I would get so angry and eventually my store manager heard I was talking about turning some of them in,.. he pulled me into his office and basically told me if I reported any customer I'd be fired and the union wouldn't give a damn, bc it was money in all of our pockets. I saw the exact same dynamic in our schools districts while teaching...

 

[RDU Irish]

I worked my way through college in a low income Kroger grocery store... fraud is a major issue...a large portion of our clients were welfare recipients gaming the system. Multiple carts in one trip, each cart paid for with some form of EBT card from a different state... often enough the recipient in question was driving some form of luxury or high end car. I would get so angry and eventually my store manager heard I was talking about turning some of them in,.. he pulled me into his office and basically told me if I reported any customer I'd be fired and the union wouldn't give a damn, bc it was money in all of our pockets. I saw the exact same dynamic in our schools districts while teaching...

Maybe the entire 1% of fraud across the country was concentrated in that one grocery store?