3 ms·
> explain why this justifies throwing the baby (legitimate beneficiaries) out with the bathwater (fraudsters). Perhaps there is a better way? We won't know unl
by maratd 13y ago
> explain why this justifies throwing the baby (legitimate beneficiaries) out with the bathwater (fraudsters).
Perhaps there is a better way? We won't know unless we explore the matter.
If you reduce government spending by the amount being cut and not merely shift resources, the people themselves will provide the support that the poor require and that support will exclude fraudsters to a greater degree. You're far more careful with money when you're spending or giving your own.
> SNAP (in total) is a negligible cost compared to those programs
Correct. However, I think an annual program using up $80 billion warrants discussion, no?
> if the House bill transferred the funds from SNAP to "soup kitchens". As it does not
I disagree. If my tax burden is lowered, then I can give the money to the soup kitchen.
However, if the House is simply playing games and shifting the funds elsewhere instead of giving it back, then yeah, we're on the same page.
> Entitlement programs also increase the capacity to become self-sufficient
Not sure what this means.
> a more discrete way of distributing benefits than what you experienced is what SNAP is now, since they no longer use stamps.
How so? They use specialized debit cards that identify you in the same exact way.
Distributing help discretely, in my opinion, is actually delivering food to the door. Which many charities do.
I assure you, the federal government couldn't care less how people feel or whether they are embarrassed.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Perhaps there is a better way? Perhaps there is. Perhaps isn't a reason to cut funding to what we have. > We won't know unless we explore the matter. This is not "exploring the matter". > If you reduce government spending by the amount being cut and not merely shift resources, the people themselves will provide the support that the poor require There is no evidence at all to support this claim, and it doesn't even make a lot of sense. We're now supposed to have faith in the invisible hand of the market for charity? > However, I think an annual program using up $80 billion warrants discussion, no? There's a pretty big difference between "discussion" and "cutting half the funding". There may certainly be legitimate things to discuss about it, but I haven't yet seen anything even resembling an argument based on anything but magic fraud-resistant charity pixies for cutting the funding being a good idea.