|
Nintendo Kid posted:This has been impossible for years due to cards. The guy you're arguing with is quite simply a moron. You can, I guess, by going to the store with the person and buying their groceries and then they pay you 80% in cash or something. I'm sure it happens. The thing is, how common is it? Are we really going to spend millions of dollars to stop a few thousand dollars worth of fraud? I guess that'd be okay if our state treasuries were overflowing but I think it'd be better to be responsible with taxpayer dollars.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
I have totally been offered food stamps while grocery shopping once. I don't remember the details he wanted to buy me $X amount of food for me and in exchange I would give him some amount less than $X in real cash. I didn't take him up on the offer but I later saw him go through the line with somebody else and pay for their food. I've literally only seen it once and I've been shopping in the low income part of town for like 8 years now. So I'm not going to extrapolate much from that other than to say I don't think it happens very often, but it does happen. FISHMANPET fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
I once saw a college age person try to buy an energy drink with food stamps. Jeez, you have to pick your stimulants from the approved list: Coffee, tea, soda. Not Redbull.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:"They sell those food stamps to someone else." I knew a chick like that. It was always for essentials, though. One of my social circles in high school was a bunch of poor people so, yeah, I really don't give a poo poo about welfare fraud. You do what you got to do, people. I'll be over here disseminating UBI talking points on social media. Dr. Arbitrary posted:I once saw a college age person try to buy an energy drink with food stamps. Jeez, you have to pick your stimulants from the approved list: Coffee, tea, soda. Not Redbull. Thrift is in such short supply these days. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:The thing is, how common is it? It's a vanishingly small portion of the total welfare budget in both the United States and the United Kingdom, based on the reports that have been done on it. Dogwhistle calls to "reform welfare" are primarily based on elitist class assumptions that are repeatedly reinforced by pundits in order to justify terrible, enduring poverty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
All this talk of food stamps made me realize there was very little in the OP, so I've added a section on welfare with a few sources and articles. There's room for the section to grow and improve, though, and this was literally just 20 minutes of me digging through google results, so if anyone knows of better sources feel free to share them here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Question that came up: Why aren't there drug tests for receiving welfare? (A) It's bad policy. People on welfare actually abuse drugs at much lower rates than the general population, as attested by attempts to implement this policy in states like Florida and Tennessee. Testing costs vastly more money than is saved from denying benefits. If he's already seen the Tennessee numbers find the Florida ones; their program involved urine testing and was applied on a much larger scale. It's also notable because the testing was championed by Governor Rick Scott, who coincidentally had a large financial stake in the company that performed the tests. It was essentially a scam whereby a known fraudster conned money from taxpayers by trading on their unjustified contempt for welfare recipients. If you support this policy, you're a mark. (B) It's unconstitutional. The program in Florida was abandoned not long ago after a federal appeals court ruling that requiring applicants for TANF to submit to drug testing was an unconstitutional violation of their fourth amendment rights. (C) It's inhumane. Your interlocutor will probably find this the least compelling argument because of some combination of right-wing misanthropy and Calvinist moralism, but basically it's a very stupid reason to deprive people of state benefits they probably need to survive. Triskelli posted:"All the employees at my work have to pass drug tests." Has he considered whether that policy is right or necessary?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:"All the employees at my work have to pass drug tests." In Florida we tried it and it wound up costing like $absurd million and it caught a single-digit amount of people the first year. Just paying those people welfare would have been cheaper but I'm sure someone in the state legislature owns the company that makes the tests or something 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I have totally been offered food stamps while grocery shopping once. I don't remember the details he wanted to buy me $X amount of food for me and in exchange I would give him some amount less than $X in real cash. I didn't take him up on the offer but I later saw him go through the line with somebody else and pay for their food. I saw a local scumbag news reporter once find a man who bought 24-packs of bottled water with the stamps, emptied them out and shoved them in the receipt machine to get the 5c per bottle and then bought booze with it. They of course framed it as "A NEW EPIDEMIC IN FOOD-STAMP MONEY LAUNDERING IS SWEEPING THE CITY!!!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:In Florida we tried it and it wound up costing like $absurd million and it caught a single-digit amount of people the first year. Just paying those people welfare would have been cheaper but I'm sure someone in the state legislature owns the company that makes the tests or something Don't be absurd. Governor Rick Scott may have founded, been involved in operations and owned $62 million worth of stock in Solantic Corp., the company that conducted the drug tests, but he transferred that stock to his wife's trust a few days before taking office so there's zero chance of corruption. http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/gov-rick-scott-solantic-and-conflict-of-interest-whats-the-deal/1161158
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Don't be absurd. Governor Rick Scott may have founded, been involved in operations and owned $62 million worth of stock in Solantic Corp., the company that conducted the drug tests, but he transferred that stock to his wife's trust a few days before taking office so there's zero chance of corruption. Thanks, that's exactly what I was thinking of but I'm at work and can only rant intermittently rather than check my facts 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I have totally been offered food stamps while grocery shopping once. I don't remember the details he wanted to buy me $X amount of food for me and in exchange I would give him some amount less than $X in real cash. I didn't take him up on the offer but I later saw him go through the line with somebody else and pay for their food. My buddy did this several times because he didn't have cash to pay bills and needed heating/water more than food.  Instead of Foodstamps we need to just give people more cash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
The real reason for opposition to food stamps/welfare is that you should have to work in order to live, and the only reason you can't work enough to survive is because you're lazy. Every red cent going to subsidize the lazy is theft and therefore sin, and the world would be a better, more moral place if everybody on welfare suddenly dropped dead. "Those who won't work shall not eat." To have all that tax money go to RIck Scott's company is more moral than feeding the poor. They're all lazy fuckers and deserve to die anyway. The above is a conservative absolute, and no amount of examples or rhetoric will convince people otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:The real reason for opposition to food stamps/welfare is that you should have to work in order to live, and the only reason you can't work enough to survive is because you're lazy. Every red cent going to subsidize the lazy is theft and therefore sin, and the world would be a better, more moral place if everybody on welfare suddenly dropped dead. "Those who won't work shall not eat." To have all that tax money go to RIck Scott's company is more moral than feeding the poor. They're all lazy fuckers and deserve to die anyway. Also remember that "lazy" to them is synonymous with "black and brown people" so there's that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:The real reason for opposition to food stamps/welfare is that you should have to work in order to live, and the only reason you can't work enough to survive is because you're lazy. Every red cent going to subsidize the lazy is theft and therefore sin, and the world would be a better, more moral place if everybody on welfare suddenly dropped dead. "Those who won't work shall not eat." To have all that tax money go to RIck Scott's company is more moral than feeding the poor. They're all lazy fuckers and deserve to die anyway. Alternately: Many people believe public assistance should be conditional, and/or that public money should be used carefully, and/or that paying people for doing nothing is in general bad policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Alternately: Many people believe public assistance should be conditional, and/or that public money should be used carefully, and/or that paying people for doing nothing is in general bad policy. "If we pay them to do nothing they won't have any motivation to work!" is the most common one I hear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Alternately: Many people believe public assistance should be conditional, and/or that public money should be used carefully, and/or that paying people for doing nothing is in general bad policy. For most, those conditions boil down to "Be a close friend or family member of mine". Everyone else is a bunch of worthless leeches.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
I need some help with this Indiana SB101 - Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) I'm completely against garbage like this, and I'm not sure it will hold up against court rulings putting it against something like the 14th Amendment. The common talking point seems to be that people support this law so the "Wedding Cake decorators" don't get sued when they decline to make a penis-shaped wedding cake for Adam and Steve... or something like that. Proponents of the bill are coming up with a lot of scenarios where upholding their "sincerely held religious beliefs" is protecting them, but I see a very slippery slope. Is this a case of unequal protection for religious folks, taking away rights from others, a combination of both? I'm kinda lost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:"If we pay them to do nothing they won't have any motivation to work!" is the most common one I hear. Break-outs of mass asceticism will destroy our economy! If we just give people cost-of-living, they'll only spend it on rent, rice, beans and literature on Buddhist philosophy and stoicism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Break-outs of mass asceticism will destroy our economy! If we just give people cost-of-living, they'll only spend it on rent, rice, beans and literature on Buddhist philosophy and stoicism. They'll use it to steak and lobster I know because I saw a black person at the checkout with that stuff once.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:They'll use it to steak and lobster I know because I saw a black person at the checkout with that stuff once. Those who can't be reached aren't worth the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:"If we pay them to do nothing they won't have any motivation to work!" is the most common one I hear. Won't have any motivation to work where? There already aren't enough jobs for the people who want to work, never mind the millions of welfare moochers conservatives insist are eating steak and lobster on your dime. Either we can pay millions of people to do nothing, or we can watch millions of people starve in the streets due to lack of adequate employment. I'd rather pay them TBH.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Won't have any motivation to work where? There already aren't enough jobs for the people who want to work, never mind the millions of welfare moochers conservatives insist are eating steak and lobster on your dime. Either we can pay millions of people to do nothing, or we can watch millions of people starve in the streets due to lack of adequate employment. I'd rather pay them TBH. There's enough jobs you just have to try. Why, I saw a "help wanted" sign at the gas station on my way to work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Either we can pay millions of people to do nothing, or we can Anyway, robotsinmyhead posted:I need some help with this Indiana SB101 - Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) Why wouldn't a wedding cake decorator be able to refuse to serve someone who wants a dickcake anyway? Why are only gay people assumed to be getting dickcakes? I can think of at least 3 people I know who are straight and who would think a dickcake is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
robotsinmyhead posted:I need some help with this Indiana SB101 - Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) Here's the thing: the state already has essentially no state wide protections for LGBT people at all. There is a ban on orientation and gender identity discrimination in government employment statewide, but this bill does not affects that. There is also protections for non-public employment in two counties, but again the bill doesn't affect that. All the things of like, "stores can now refuse to serve gay customers", well that's already legal, as there's never been a law against it in Indiana. In essence the law just reaffirms something that's already 100% legal and therefore does nothing other than make the state look bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:There's enough jobs you just have to try. Why, I saw a "help wanted" sign at the gas station on my way to work. I saw 20 people applying for federal aid the last time I stopped by DSHS. I say again, not enough jobs. And like as not the dude working at the gas station would still need welfare, so now we need to worry about the ratio of job seekers to good sufficient-to-support-a-family jobs, which is going to be even worse than the 1.8 I already posted. Actually, is there anything resembling an authoritative source on the number of high-paying jobs, or just job openings, in the US? JOLTS has the aggregate numbers, but that includes mopping up vomit for $2/week at McDonalds, which is less than helpful for this kind of thing. The last person I argued this point with tried throwing up a monster.com search, showing half a million job openings offering professional pay/requiring professional qualifications, to which I responded by posting the U6 of several million people. He then argued that there are other sites, which have a million more openings looking for people, I pointed out that there would be massive overlap between all these sites, so he suggested finding a single source that would, hypothetically, have an accounting of all the job openings across the country. I pointed smugly back at JOLTS. Additional request: What're the usual criticisms of South Park-style "I'm not racist, I'm misanthropic" arguments? The best one I can think of right now is that the person making that claim really doesn't hate everybody, he's quite fond of his fellow rich conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Here's the thing: the state already has essentially no state wide protections for LGBT people at all. There is a ban on orientation and gender identity discrimination in government employment statewide, but this bill does not affects that. There is also protections for non-public employment in two counties, but again the bill doesn't affect that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm not aware of the policies of the various municipalities in Indiana, but it's conceivable that at least one offers protections for gay customers, which could be challenged. None do. The closest proposed was LGBT housing protections in Indianapolis which don't seem to have gone through
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Here's the thing: the state already has essentially no state wide protections for LGBT people at all. There is a ban on orientation and gender identity discrimination in government employment statewide, but this bill does not affects that. There is also protections for non-public employment in two counties, but again the bill doesn't affect that. I wasn't entirely aware of that. I've been claiming that Pence was doing this to grandstand for his inevitable White House run and it appears as if this is the case - garner support from the Tea Party, solidify the base, gently caress everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
There any good anti-MRA resources like those global warming resources? This other forum I'm on has a couple of crazy weirdos who can't shut up about it ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
I would probably write them off as a drop in the ocean of internet forums posters who are hosed up weirdos
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:There any good anti-MRA resources like those global warming resources? This other forum I'm on has a couple of crazy weirdos who can't shut up about it ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:There any good anti-MRA resources like those global warming resources? This other forum I'm on has a couple of crazy weirdos who can't shut up about it ever. Feminism. It's that simple.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I would probably write them off as a drop in the ocean of internet forums posters who are hosed up weirdos I did too until that murder spree happened and then NPR started seriously looking into them and found that they're actually pretty big and coordinated and scary. Also you have varying degrees to look at, there's the outright "women should be subservient to men and there's a conspiracy to oppress men" loony red-piller types that can probably just be ignored for the most part because they're insane, but there's also the kind of people who jump in whenever someone's talking about women's rights to go "well that happens to men too sometimes!" or "well not all men are like that!" as if you're only allowed to campaign for women if you get "permission" and it doesn't hurt men's feelings or paint them in a bad light whatsoever. I think those kinds of people are far more prevalent and a much more pervasive cultural issue. Also most people's anti-feminism arguments boil down to http://www.harkavagrant.com/?id=341 EDIT: Forgot there's cartoony boobs in that so 
Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Yeah, these guys are more the latter. Nominally feminist but everything bends.and twists into attacks on "modern feminism," and it's all tantamount to feminism conspiracy theories. 'Minority' applied to women due to political dynamics is feminazi thought control and manspreading is a feminazi war on men and so on and .so on. And they can't discuss any male gender issues without couching the dialog in anti-feminist victim/persecution narratives. Amd one of them is so twisted up inside about this stuff that it's creepy as poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
I guess this isn't an argument that should be used often in this thread, but - isn't the best option to simply leave? What's keeping you there? I know I paid  to basically have a place here where I can somewhat confidently assume most people posting around me do not actually think black people and women are morally inferior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
It's a small forum but there's like ~25 regulars who're pleasant to talk to about various topics. Also, one of the mods is a Hungarian communist who works for the UN. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:It's also notable because the testing was championed by Governor Rick Scott, who coincidentally had a large financial stake in the company that performed the tests. Excuse me, but this is inaccurate. He didn't have a financial stake in it, his wife did. See? No malfeasance at all! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Excuse me, but this is inaccurate. He didn't have a financial stake in it, his wife did. See? No malfeasance at all! Three posts below that one dude 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
Got some guys blaming Islam for violence in the Middle East and I'm trying to figure out how to sell these guys on religion generally being non-causal and that other factors are why it's so hosed up, e.g. hosed up political systems, hosed up social systems, etc. But I'm hitting a snag at square 1. They think it's as simple as: Islam --> Violence. Everything I'm saying is more complex than that so they're like, "Nah, nah, nah," and are hand-wavey as poo poo. Point out some underlying social problems which give rise to the same violence in other contexts? Whoa, you don't need all those mental backflips, it's just Islam. Point out Saudi Arabia spending multiple decades and many tens of billions fomenting radical Islam? Whoa, [ignores that, posts about, "It's just Islam," later]. I need something sharp and concise to get through but I don't know what.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:25
|
|