Do you think there could be a second Great Depression?

[Son_of_Atropos]

You can accuse me of laying it on too thick all you like, but I lived the life I have lived and have the experience that backs up my statement. Some of the examples I gave you are extremely personal. I am more than happy to share the individual stories if you'd like.

Do people game the system? Absolutely, and those things should not be excused in any way shape or form. But not everyone who is dealing with the system abuses it, and not everyone who could be helped is being helped. Most of the stories I told are of people who aren't involved in the "system." Again, if you'd like personal details from my own life or from those I have known, I am more than happy to share, please ask. I think we need to put names and faces to these things.

Who cares if it is 2 children who are hungry or 200,000? Shouldn't we be ashamed that we allow that to happen at any magnitude? It's not like suffering is somehow less for each of those 2 children than for those 200,000. At what point do we care if it's a problem- 1% of our children being hungry is ok, but 10% is not? Why?

Are you honestly telling me that people are so poor that they cannot buy any food. How do you know the child hording food was poor? So not only was the child getting a free lunch but you want to expand it one step farther and ensure that the entire family gets all the food it wants? How do you know the child is not getting any food until Monday?

Children where? Here? or in some other country? Whose children? My children? your children? Everyone's child? This sounds like a job for the U.N. That is the only entity I could think of that would address all their needs. I heard someone floating a "world tax" so maybe that could be used to pay for all the food, clothing, water, shelter, electricity, phone, and... anything else? You all would agree to that right?

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

The myth of the welfare mother bilking the system and our reaction reflects such a deep hatred of the poor.
Rich businessmen who rob their companies, shareholders, and the Government for millions barely raise an eyebrow among the populace but tell the rabble a jobless mother of three received an extra welfare check and they are ready to teabag the Government. We're a nation of idiots.

I think the reason that welfare fraud stands out in people's minds more so than white collar crime is because in the case of welfare fraud many of us have actually witnessed it in some form or another. Even though the archetypical welfare queen who has bilked the system on such a massive scale is fortunately quite rare, many of us, for example, have stood in line at the store and seen somebody using their food stamps to buy cigarettes and beer. While on an individual level such misuse is so insignificant that we're often willing to give the offender a pass. However, over time a little here and a little there by so many people does add up like a snowball into a significantly big lot. Also one of my neighbors owns and manages a small apartment complex in a low income area and he has seen government checks addressed to two or three different people in a particular apartment even though only one person lives there alone.

The fact remains that a million people each stealing a buck is a far more common occurrence than a Bernie Madoff stealing a million dollars in one shot. And while it's true, and understandably quite galling, that the latter enjoys a much greater benefit from that million than the former, at the end of the day a million dollars is still a million dollars -- particularly to the taxpayers.

 

[William Stratford]

If we relied on the average man to do the right thing and give to charity there'd be a lot more homeless and poverty in this country.
Government should be about taking care of it's citizens (not only the rich corporate pigs feeding at the trough of Government ) and taxes for social programs are essential to the health of the entire country.
The myth of the welfare mother bilking the system and our reaction reflects such a deep hatred of the poor.

Indeed. Although, speaking as someone in Britain (where we have the NHS and a wide wellfare-state), it has to be administered very carefully. Overhere we have a problem with it encouraging irresponsibility (such as obese people getting gastric bands fitted on the NHS, without requiring they change their behaviour, or the sheer level of promiscuity/single parents as the State steps in to fund such).

The ideal is a midway point, between the machinery of the State and the vacillation of personal charity, where people gain status, power and responsibility on the basis of the service they give rather than the profit they reap. Prior to our politics being polarised into market vrs state there was a third stance; that of local social cohesion built upon noblesse oblige and the finding of identity firstly in community rather than individuality. It wasn't perfect, nothing is, but it was a form of charity that lacks the problems of both individual giving and the irresponsibility-promotion that has been snowballing here for 50 years or more.

Rich businessmen who rob their companies, shareholders, and the Government for millions barely raise an eyebrow among the populace but tell the rabble a jobless mother of three received an extra welfare check and they are ready to teabag the Government. We're a nation of idiots.

Indeed, again. A situation not helped by asinine tabloid media.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Anyway, I'm fine with being relieved from some of my wealth any which way, but then I'm a Christian and find the likelihood of a camel passing through the eye of a needle rather poor odds.

Indeed. Where your treasure is, so also will your heart be. And even after all these centuries, you still can't take it with you. Rich man or poor man, it's all the same to the worms.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Even though the archetypical welfare queen who has bilked the system on such a massive scale is fortunately quite rare, many of us, for example, have stood in line at the store and seen somebody using their food stamps to buy cigarettes and beer.

I'm almost fifty years old, have stood in many many thousands of grocery lines in towns with a good part of the population below the poverty line -- and even spent a good part of my childhood *on* food stamps. And I've never, in my entire life, seen with my own eyes anyone actually buy beer and cigarettes with food stamps -- if a store allowed them to do this, they'd be as criminal as the person doing the buying.

The abuses arose when you could get cash change back from the food coupons -- originally you only got paper chits, issued by the stores themselves, which were redeemable only for food purchases from that same store, but in 1977 the law was changed to allow up to 99 cents cash change to be given per purchase -- a change made due to heavy lobbying from the big supermarket chains, which were complaining about the cost of keeping track of the chits.

It then became possible for a recipient to make a lot of nickel-and-dime purchases at different stores around town in order to amass enough change to buy beer and cigarettes, but you wouldn't know who was doing it if you were just standing in the line watching -- they still had to pay actual cash, not stamps, for the beer and cigs. Or, a recipient might resort to selling the food stamps for fifty cents cash on the dollar to the sort of entrepreneurial parasites who always seem to crop up in any community where people are poor and desperate. The people who thus sold their coupons would be as likely to use the cash for rent and fuel oil or other necessities as for booze and butts -- to assume they're doing only the latter is an assumption that reveals more about the one doing the assuming than the one they're assuming about.

Such schemes are no longer possible -- since 2004, the food stamp program uses a debit card system which only allows eligible products to be purchased.

 

[4spurs]

"the food stamp program uses a debit card system which only allows eligible products to be purchased."

Thank you for the myth-busting, there is a certain segment of our citizenry that perpetuates lies about poor people; what they do, how they came to be poor, their personal habits etc.; mean spirited people is what they are; and in truth, many of them are no more than two paychecks away from being poor themselves.

 

[sheeplady]

Are you honestly telling me that people are so poor that they cannot buy any food. How do you know the child hording food was poor? So not only was the child getting a free lunch but you want to expand it one step farther and ensure that the entire family gets all the food it wants? How do you know the child is not getting any food until Monday?

Children where? Here? or in some other country? Whose children? My children? your children? Everyone's child? This sounds like a job for the U.N. That is the only entity I could think of that would address all their needs. I heard someone floating a "world tax" so maybe that could be used to pay for all the food, clothing, water, shelter, electricity, phone, and... anything else? You all would agree to that right?

Your attitude seems dismissive towards those of us here who have known hunger, particularly as children. You're basically attacking a whole group of people on this forum and calling us liars purely because you can't see beyond the privledge of your own life where you were always well fed. You state over and over again that you don't believe me (and others here), yet it seems like your experience base is extremely limited as far as interacting with people at different socioeconomic levels. Several people here have tried to offer you their experience to broaden your own perspective and you've responded to them very harshly. And because you asked, I'm talking about the US and US citizens.

And as far as the world tax, I've got a much better idea: how about you go and donate something to your local food pantry. It doesn't seem like you believe in hunger though.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Well probably too political...but substitute Government Bucks for Obama Bucks. Illustrates another very prominent side of this issue (among others that fit the same mold)....

[video=youtube;Z5tqH7UrzOw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tqH7UrzOw[/video]

 

[Flicka]

Children where? Here? or in some other country? Whose children? My children? your children? Everyone's child? This sounds like a job for the U.N. That is the only entity I could think of that would address all their needs. I heard someone floating a "world tax" so maybe that could be used to pay for all the food, clothing, water, shelter, electricity, phone, and... anything else? You all would agree to that right?

Actually, I would. Oh, and please add 'education' and 'healthcare' to your list.

I don't care if it's my child or your child or a child in Somalia. Not a single child should go hungry in the world and that they do, anywhere in the world, while I have a flatscreen tv and more food in the pantry than I can eat in a month, well, that makes me feel really, really guilty. As it should. I give to charity, yes, but the righteous thing would be for all of us who have to give of our bounty those the least of our brethren who have nothing. It's not 'someone else's job'; there is no jurisdiction for altruism - or for moral responsibility. The combination of limited resources and limited altruism causes a lot of the suffering in the world. Limited resources is an undeniable fact, but that probably wouldn't matter if we had unlimited altruism. Which we don't. That may be a fact as well, and I may be as guilty of selfishness as the next person, but I sure as all that don't consider it right.

 

[Feraud]

Your attitude seems dismissive towards those of us here who have known hunger, particularly as children. You're basically attacking a whole group of people on this forum and calling us liars purely because you can't see beyond the privledge of your own life where you were always well fed. You state over and over again that you don't believe me (and others here), yet it seems like your experience base is extremely limited as far as interacting with people at different socioeconomic levels. Several people here have tried to offer you their experience to broaden your own perspective and you've responded to them very harshly. And because you asked, I'm talking about the US and US citizens.

And as far as the world tax, I've got a much better idea: how about you go and donate something to your local food pantry. It doesn't seem like you believe in hunger though.

If you twist the arm of the 1% they'd eventually concede there are hungry people in the U.S....but the poverty is their own fault.

 

[vitanola]

If you twist the arm of the 1% they'd eventually concede there are hungry people in the U.S....but the poverty is their own fault.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Sinclair Lewis


You know, there are now many in this country who now firmly believe that altruism, compassion, and self-sacrifice are evil.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

Actually, I would. Oh, and please add 'education' and 'healthcare' to your list.

I don't care if it's my child or your child or a child in Somalia. Not a single child should go hungry in the world and that they do, anywhere in the world, while I have a flatscreen tv and more food in the pantry than I can eat in a month, well, that makes me feel really, really guilty. As it should. I give to charity, yes, but the righteous thing would be for all of us who have to give of our bounty those the least of our brethren who have nothing. It's not 'someone else's job'; there is no jurisdiction for altruism - or for moral responsibility. The combination of limited resources and limited altruism causes a lot of the suffering in the world. Limited resources is an undeniable fact, but that probably wouldn't matter if we had unlimited altruism. Which we don't. That may be a fact as well, and I may be as guilty of selfishness as the next person, but I sure as all that don't consider it right.

Great. However, it is going to take awhile to get the U.N. infrastructure in place to provide all these entitlements for the poor. For a short term solution, how about countries send the poor to Sweden. Is it easy to immigrate to Sweden or are there heartless immigration laws?

 

[4spurs]

Immigrate to Sweden, good idea, the 1% should immigrate to Sweden; the 99% built the U.S. and don't need the 1%.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

Your attitude seems dismissive towards those of us here who have known hunger, particularly as children. You're basically attacking a whole group of people on this forum and calling us liars purely because you can't see beyond the privledge of your own life where you were always well fed. You state over and over again that you don't believe me (and others here), yet it seems like your experience base is extremely limited as far as interacting with people at different socioeconomic levels. Several people here have tried to offer you their experience to broaden your own perspective and you've responded to them very harshly. And because you asked, I'm talking about the US and US citizens.

And as far as the world tax, I've got a much better idea: how about you go and donate something to your local food pantry. It doesn't seem like you believe in hunger though.

I was willing to let bygones be bygones; however, your self-righteous attitude was to dismiss my idea that people bilk the system. I come from an area where the land is rife with corruption. But my experiences aren't good enough for you and your high horse. Instead of accepting the idea that people should be cautious with thinking with their hearts instead of their minds, you went on and on about how heartless it is for me to let any person go hungry. Then you claim these people cannot purchase ANY food for their children. An absurd proposition. Furthermore, people here promote the idea that human beings have a right to be nourished-- that it is morally irresponsible to let people go hungry. Huh? Come again? Why? Can anyone explain how this makes sense in the real world? While Flicka is willing to be a sap, is everyone here willing to be a sap? (See Flicka's post where s/he says that s/he says is willing to pay more for people to receive food and if there is corruption then, oh well.)

While it is noble to feed everyone, I can only think of the saying "that the path to hell is paved with good intentions."

Here is my advice to you, Sheeplady. You obviously feel very strongly about hunger in your area. So start a non-profit in your area to feed the poor. Since you are dealing with a unique rural problem, I'm sure you can handle it. You are very passionate about it and I believe you can do a lot of good.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

Immigrate to Sweden, good idea, the 1% should immigrate to Sweden; the 99% built the U.S. and don't need the 1%.

Isn't Sweden the one country where there is a tax bracket for 120% of income? So not only do you have to pay your entire salary but you have to pay extra. If Sweden is going to pay for feeding all of the poor then all of the prosperous countries will have to export the rich to Sweden along with all of their wealth, the most important thing.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

Such schemes are no longer possible -- since 2004, the food stamp program uses a debit card system which only allows eligible products to be purchased.

In states with bottle deposits, the person purchases soda, pours out the soda, and then returns the bottles and receives cash. The person uses the cash to purchase liquor or fags.

or,

The clerk rings up the items as something else and pockets the money. So if you are purchasing liquor the store clerk will ring it up as something else (say something appropriate like food but at a higher price than the liquor) and the person will receive the liquor instead of the food. The clerk/store pockets the difference in the price.

 

[LizzieMaine]

We've had a bottle deposit law here since 1978, and I've never seen that happen. At a nickel a bottle, you'd have to buy an awful lot of soda to get enough for a pack of cigs -- they're over $7 a pack now in Maine, and let's see, that works out to buying 140 bottles of soda at a retail price of a buck each, so $140 -- over half the monthly food-stamp allotment -- spent to get $7 for a pack of cigs.

Right. I'm sure there's someone stupid enough to try this, but it's hardly a rampant epidemic except in the world of talk radio. Maybe if they hijack a Coca-Cola route truck they'll get enough to buy a carton.

As for the liquor example, I don't know what state you live in, but here every retail establishment that sells alcohol has to keep a careful inventory of product, which has to match the invoices from the wholesaler and the retail cash-register records of each sale. These inventories are closely tracked, and subject to random inspection by the State Liquor Commission. If a crooked clerk pulls such a stunt, they'll only pull it once -- such tampering is considered a felony.

 

[Flicka]

Isn't Sweden the one country where there is a tax bracket for 120% of income? So not only do you have to pay your entire salary but you have to pay extra. If Sweden is going to pay for feeding all of the poor then all of the prosperous countries will have to export the rich to Sweden along with all of their wealth, the most important thing.

No, that's absolutely wrong. There was one rather famous case where a writer managed to end up with a tax rate over 100% in the seventies or early eighties, but we had a completely different tax system in place then that by that time had become so patched up that peculiar and unintended effects cropped up. Our tax system was completely redone in the early '90s and right now around 50% is the most anyone pays as an income tax for any part of their income. I specialised in tax law in law school, so I'm pretty familiar with our system even if I don't work with it anymore.

And I do not recall saying that I think Sweden should pay for all the poor in the world. I said that I think that it is all our responsibility to do so, and that your attempt to somehow export the problem to the UN (or me, or Sweden or Sheeplady) is nothing but a lame excuse that--in my eyes--does not free you from moral responsibility for the suffering in the world.

I was willing to let bygones be bygones; however, your self-righteous attitude was to dismiss my idea that people bilk the system. I come from an area where the land is rife with corruption. But my experiences aren't good enough for you and your high horse. Instead of accepting the idea that people should be cautious with thinking with their hearts instead of their minds, you went on and on about how heartless it is for me to let any person go hungry. Then you claim these people cannot purchase ANY food for their children. An absurd proposition. Furthermore, people here promote the idea that human beings have a right to be nourished-- that it is morally irresponsible to let people go hungry. Huh? Come again? Why? Can anyone explain how this makes sense in the real world? While Flicka is willing to be a sap, is everyone here willing to be a sap? (See Flicka's post where s/he says that s/he says is willing to pay more for people to receive food and if there is corruption then, oh well.)

While it is noble to feed everyone, I can only think of the saying "that the path to hell is paved with good intentions."

Really, when you do this--basically calling me and Sheeplady names--what exactly in your conduct do you find becoming a gentleman? One can disagree with someone without resorting to that kind of rather weak attempt at bullyism.

You are not coming across in a very flattering light, dear man.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Our tax system was completely redone in the early '90s and right now around 50% is the most anyone pays as an income tax for any part of their income.

Interestingly, during the entire postwar-boom era in the United States, from 1946 to 1964, the top income tax rate was never less than 86 percent -- and got as high as 91 percent for much of the period. Some call that The Golden Era.

 

[angeljenny]

I think that the financial situation is really quite scary!

When I was growing up we didn't have a lot of money - not poor but no luxuries - and I think that I went too far the other way when I got my job. Moving back the other way now! I save for things I want and tend to to buy expensive things. I have seen a sewing machine that I love but it is a lot of money so I won't jump into it. I am lucky as I have a job and live with my parents. Some of my friends from work are at work during the day then work in pubs on a night.

Home made and frugal seems to be in fashion right now but it is the sort of home made craft that costs rather a lot of money. Like the home made birthday cards - cheaper to buy ready made ones generally but I think some people see making something by hand as frugal even if it costs more.