It sounds like you and Tim might agree on some things

IMO, some people don’t actually grasp the underlying principles of which they speak. It sounds alike on the surface, but the comprehension isn’t really there, ya know? And there are, of course, some people I just don’t want representing my viewpoint, especially AT me.

This is where I don’t understand using the “it’s unjust to take from those who have” argument.

That’s predicated on the idea that those who have came by it honestly. I know I didn’t make that clear, but it’s a very complex issue to me.

I’m no more in favor of “corporate welfare” than anybody else, but I’m also not in favor of heavy regulation. Regulation requires subsidy; one hand giveth and one hand taketh away.

I also think that “greed” is used as a knee-jerk negative buzzword that really doesn’t mean anything anymore. Define greed. Is it people who have money and thus, make more by default, or is it people who steal? They aren’t the same.

It’s interesting what the Big Banks did with our taxpayer dollars – they in effect took their “food stamps” and went to Vegas.

That’s true. However, it was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 that got the ball rolling. And YES the banks took it and ran with it. That’s on them.

The rant I posted was just me, someone who took a a part-time graveyard grocery store clerk job to pay my taxes (as in, on April 15, I owed). Yeah, it was a pretty bitter pill to swallow.

I agree with probably all of your “tweeks” to the Food Stamp program. I would go along with them. For me, the point has become all government programs will have unintended consequences. People will take advantage. I would rather live in a country that provides support for people that need a hand up even if that means that some people take advantage. However, this is far from the ideal.

It’s interesting what the Big Banks did with our taxpayer dollars – they in effect took their “food stamps” and went to Vegas. This is where I don’t understand using the “it’s unjust to take from those who have” argument. In the grand scheme of things the poor on food stamps make bad purchases – sometimes intentionally “screwing” us out of what? 50 dollars? The greed of some of the rich in this country have sent the entire world economy into a tailspin. Why are we so concerned that the poor steal from us, but allow Wall Street’s robber barons to continue to plunder the country?

That may be. However, I’d rather put the social engineering toward getting that program to supplement income rather than replace it, rather than on potentially punitive measures.

Agreed. *If* we’re going to social engineer things, I’d like it to be with a purpose in mind, which is to get the beneficiary to a point where he/she can support himself.

Part of my issue (in general) is that benefits received are predicated on the beneficiary not having any (or much) other income. If the beneficiary works, s/he may not earn above X amount before s/he’s cut off from the benefits. This does not help *anybody*. It only guarantees that the person be stuck in exactly the same position (extreme poverty) whether he works or not.

The goal of help should be to get the person solidly back on his feet with regard to the basic necessities of life and a job to maintain those before taking away benefits, then…take them away.

Side note: I love Habitat for Humanity. I love Jimmy Carter for doing what he’s done for Habitat for Humanity. It’s a private program that invests in people who want to invest in themselves, and that’s what it should be all about.

hahahahaha Dude cracks me up talking about himself in the third person.

It’s traditional, I believe. The Dude abides.

it’s no more nanny than anything else we do

That may be. However, I’d rather put the social engineering toward getting that program to supplement income rather than replace it, rather than on potentially punitive measures. Some people abuse the system; that can’t be completely prevented. There are also people who get off a late shift and need to pick up milk near the bus stop; I’d rather adjust the rules and resources to favor them. Of course that shift in emphasis is easy for me to espouse, not being on the receiving end of the attitude you describe.

I vary between a libertarian and a liberal democrat, although I know that doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Libertarians come in lefty and righty varieties, so that combination is plausible. (The Big Smart Thing about http://www.politicalcompass.org is that it puts politics in 4 dimensions, not simply left/right. Perhaps you’re “Libertarian Left” on their chart.)

actually, I’ve never disagreed with her and I don’t even think I’m doing that now.

Hard to say, as neither of us is inclined to fight about it 😉

Thank you, MoJo. I don’t often comment on political rants–it’s such an energy sink–but I thought you could take some snot and dissent. Being able to trust each other not to flip out or assume the worst is gold, and it’s what makes these conversations work.

I needed to clarify that #2 because obviously more than one person (including Dude) didn’t see my reasoning for it. I still haven’t fully clarified, but I will.

I know this sounds queer and condescending, but I like the way you and RfP can have a dialogue about a subject you disagree on without deteriorating into infantile name calling. I start off intelligent and mature, but too often drop into “Yo Mama wears army boots” type comments. So non productive.

I don’t expect gratitude. Not at all. I don’t expect humility. I don’t expect anything but common courtesy.

More than once, an EBT-card user sneered at me (with no provocation) and said something to the effect of, “If you were smart me like me, you wouldn’t be stuck on graveyard shift at the grocery store.”

I also think #2 is extremely nanny-state-like, and I have trouble reconciling it with the claim to being libertarian.

Well, now, that’s true. It does. And it’s no more nanny than anything else we do (e.g., WIC). Of course, I just want to get rid of it altogether, but my only thought with #2 was to make the beneficiary think about what he had to buy before casually using the card.

I wanted there to be a little effort on the beneficiary’s part as to how and when to spend that money.

It’s very difficult watching a pack of apparently healthy 20-something people come in at 3 o’clock in the morning to buy brownie mix and Coke, ice cream and expensive frozen pizza for the party they’ve informed you that they’re having, pay for it on EBT, and then sneer at you for being a chump.

Yeah, I was angry. I’m not as angry as I was then because I don’t work in a grocery store anymore, but it was maddening. Not a week went by I wasn’t insulted or sneered at for working a menial job (a second job, at that), with me standing there thinking about my checkbook and what *I* could afford to buy that week, and be treated that way.

If MoJo was running the world, there wouldn’t BE a food stamp program. She’s stuck between a rock and a hard place

I got that. However, I disagree that attitude has any relevance to how social programs should be planned or approved. In part because that aspect of the rant sounds like you expect gratitude, and that seems like entirely the wrong footing for the whole transaction. Much like the guy I heard yell at a park ranger, “I pay your salary, so don’t tell me I can’t have a campfire”. No, Taxpayer A doesn’t directly pay Taxpayer B’s salary or food bill; nor, even if that were the case, should it grant A any moral authority over B. That’s infantilizing as well as illogical.

I also think #2 is extremely nanny-state-like, and I have trouble reconciling it with the claim to being libertarian.

Kel remembers paper food stamps, too, and used to do the same thing you did with regards to the change.