Let's help rename "Food Stamps"

[AlexC]

Read first : http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-food23.html
I thought it would be nice for us to do our part and help to come up with a new name for the "Food Stamps" card.
I have a few names that I came up with myself   :

"I have more beer money now" card
"Your tax dollars being wasted" card
"I eat better stuff than you" card
"Why should I get a job when I get stuff for free" card

[SirPeale]

As someone who has been on food stamps, I resent the implication.

Yes, there are people who abuse the system.  Back when I first moved to New York, I was @ a convenience store.  There was a lady in designer clothes with her kid dressed in designer clothes, all decked out with gold jewelery.  They paid for their purchaes with food stamps.  Then they got into a brand new car and drove off.

But for many, it's necessary to survive.  After having our first child, and having one income taken away suddenly, we found we didn't have enough money to eat.  The program saved us.

I think the benefits far outweigh those few jerks that abuse the system.

[AlexC]

I agree with you, the system is a needed one, but they should have better control of it. I hate seeing it abused by people that don't truly need it.

[fredster]

I think the point was it's more than a few.

[abrannan]

I think the point was it's more than a few.

And of course you have the research data to back this statement up.

But while we're making broad, unsupported assumptions, I'll say that any one Fortune 500 company abuses Government systems for more money than all food stamp abusers put together.

[danny_galaga]

wasn't that article about it transferring to an electronic system? surely then there would be LESS abuse, so a more accurate name, if a somewhat less glib one would be:

"i have LESS beer money now" card

and abranans right, its the really fat cats who abuse in much worse ways. sometimes whole companies pay less tax than an average income earner for instance...

[mp2526]

sometimes whole companies pay less tax than an average income earner for instance...

But is that necessarily an abuse?  Companies are often offered tax incentives to move into areas to provide jobs for those average income earners.  They may pay less tax, but hopefully they provide more jobs.  But I do agree that large companies often abuse the system.

[crashwg]

This is kind of an interesting topic.  I hadn't realized that food stamps still existed.  It just never occured to me that NH would be leading the pack on new technology!!!  

Anyway, up here in NH we've had the EBT card for something like 3 or 4 years.  I'm not too sure how widespread the EBT card has been up until now, but it sure is nice to hear that it's going national...




[size=8]SAVE THE TREES[/size]

 

[fredster]

And of course you have the research data to back this statement up.

But while we're making broad, unsupported assumptions, ..

It's estimated that up to 18.5% of Foods Stamp programs is fraud and abuse.  Sure there's reseach, there's lots of it. Google it : try "food stamp abuse"  

The government doesn't even really accurate keep stats on it.  Every sting operation they put into place brings out hords of people not qualified.  

This EBT system looks like it works much better though.  The system looks like it cuts out all kinds of fraud.    

Peale is right, I know several people that have fallen on their luck and needed somebody to help.   But if 5 billion of a 27 billion dollar progam is wasted, something should be done.  

[missioncontrol]

how bout

"now I have to find a new way to beat the system" card




Yes.... as a kid my mom was on stamps and most her friends so I have seen alot of it first hand

[Setabs]

Here in texas we use the ebt card.  And I still see some abuse of it.  We also have WIC(Women with Infant Children), or something like that.  They provide the neccesaties(sp) a child needs like, milk, eggs, cereal, Juice.  Things like that.  I have seen that abused also.  Easiest way to abuse wic is get your girl knocked up, have the kid and don't get married untill your wic runs out.

[ChadTower]

As someone who has been on food stamps, I resent the implication.

As someone who has worked in the system, I will support it.  There are a lot of good people such as yourself who genuinely need some short term help and it's good to get it to them.  There are also, unfortunately, a LOT of people who either aren't qualified or who are qualified but also make no effort whatsoever to ever get off of them.  I'm talking people on public assistance for 20+ years.  Many of them aren't even US citizens, refuse to learn English, and intentionally obfuscate the paperwork process in an effort to make it more difficult to force them into any kind of accountability.  During my short time working at a local welfare office (I was a teen doing basic office work) I saw some things that would make the average taxpayer's blood boil.

The system is needed... but it desperately, desperately needs to be streamlined and improved upon.  I'd say probably half of the people I saw in and out were abusing the system in one way or another.

[DrewKaree]

I recall years ago the term "commodities".  I had to go with my grandmother and mother to go pick them up.  The government at that time offered staple food items for those who needed it.  At that time, THAT was the food assistance program.  THAT is the program that needs to be returned to.  That's where the term "government cheese" came  from too.  How were you going to trade a block of cheese for a case of beer?  You find someone who wanted that cheese more than their beer.  

If that was the system that was still in place, people wouldn't look at food assistance programs in the same prejudiced light that they currently do.  What's wrong with going back to that system?

The abuse many either see or infer is going on needs to be more than "monitored".  It needs to be punished, plain and simple.  If proper consequences were doled out for abusing the system, less would happen, and there wouldn't be the backlash towards "giving my hard earned money to some deadbeat pounding out kids to get more government money" (NOTICE the quotation marks before you yell at me).

How is it not ever noticed that once the government takes over some program, it inevitably gets so bloated and wasteful as to be more useless than helpful?

Lest you think me some cold-hearted fiend, my family has also relied on the assistance of this program, and I have seen first-hand the bloat they dole out on a monthly basis.  Ask me....I'll tell you my situation AND how much more they gave us than what was needed.

[danny_galaga]

sometimes whole companies pay less tax than an average income earner for instance...

But is that necessarily an abuse?  Companies are often offered tax incentives to move into areas to provide jobs for those average income earners.  They may pay less tax, but hopefully they provide more jobs.  But I do agree that large companies often abuse the system.

you mean move into areas like Indonesia and Taiwan? ;-)
where are YOUR computer parts made?

[gprime]

I don't know much about Food Stamps, but I remember reading this a week ago:

http://www.absforums.com/index.php?showtopic=23707

It's a kid on a forum bragging about his abuse of the system. A dumb video of him going into a store pretending he's retarded to buy stuff with his Food Stamps.

[MnMCaputo]

I noticed the mass abuse of food stamps first hand as well, even went so far as to report it, I was basically told "well sir, thats none of your business"   and that was by someone in Virginias Dept of Social Services.  I honestly couldnt believe my ears

[abrannan]

How is it not ever noticed that once the government takes over some program, it inevitably gets so bloated and wasteful as to be more useless than helpful?

It's because of the regulatory oversight that all government programs and offices must follow.  I've seen more "investigative journalism" on how long of a smoke break government workers go on, or the fact that they're browsing non-work related sites on government time, and how much of a waste of taxpayers money that is.  Same stuff happens in private industry, but there's a completely different standard.  There are no Freedom of Information Act requests that private industries have to comply with.  Every last thing that any government agency does (unless it's classified) is potentially available to any person who wants to file a request for information.  That creates a lot of overhead, as processes have to be followed, and forms have to be created, filled out, filed, etc.  These are burdens that private industry doesn't have.  The only burdens that private industry has that the government doesn't are the burdens of profit and tax.  A private industry has to make a profit in some fashion.  It may be due to government subsidies, it may be refusing service to those to put too great a strain on the system.  

[fredster]

abrannan,

The only person mentioning private industry is you.  It really has no bearing what so ever with this topic.

 The difference in the government programs is that You and I pay for it.  We are the share holders per say.

 What private industries do is "private".  But if they are owned by shareholders, the information is available to them.

And besides, pointing out one wrong to justify another makes no sense.  It's not the point here.

[abrannan]

abrannan,

The only person mentioning private industry is you.  It really has no bearing what so ever with this topic.

 The difference in the government programs is that You and I pay for it.  We are the share holders per say.

 What private industries do is "private".  But if they are owned by shareholders, the information is available to them.

And besides, pointing out one wrong to justify another makes no sense.  It's not the point here.

I was merely mentioning (in response to DrewKaree's statement that gov't programs become bloated) a possible reason for said "bloat".  My point of contention is that if Private industry (which is the "thin, streamlined, and efficient" program to compare the government "bloat" to) had to jump through half the hoops and withstand half the scrutiny that gov't programs do, then they'd be bloated as well.  I'm not justifying anything, nor am I pointing out a wrong.  I pay for what Happs does by purchasing their product, that provides the funds for their operation.  Does that mean I have the right to look into all of their transactions, and receive information regarding everything they do?  No.  Even if I were a shareholder, there are limits to what I can request, and those limits are far less than what I can legally request from the government.   Am I saying that there is no waste in the government?  No, far from it.

Yes, it's off the main point of the topic, but it was a direct response to a quote in the thread.
Private industry was not specifically mentioned, but the implication that private industry would do a better job than governemnt was there.

[shmokes]

To some degree poor people get a bit of a bad rap as "leeches" on the system.  Many kinds of assistance is simply acceptable.  The person who "pulls himself up by his bootstraps" and gets a college education, even if he pays full tuition, has his education paid for by tax money.  The person who goes into a regular business couldn't make money without using government created and maintained infrastructures: roads, water, power, etc.

A shipping company, with the exception of toll roads, doesn't pay a higher percentage of the costs to maintain roads, even though that company uses the roads far more than an ordinary person, and without those roads the "self-made" man would be out of business.

Would DirecTV have sattelites in the sky without the hundreds of billions of dollars in research done by NASA?   Could any single company have accomplished the things that NASA has done?  If so, why haven't they?

A lot of poor people may look at the system and think to themselves, "How can I take advantage of that?"  Rich people do the same thing.  They just have the opportunity to take advantage of other governmental programs (much more lucrative ones).

Think of all the medical, chemical and technological research that is done in universities around the country that benefit, even CREATE businesses.  Tax dollars pay for that research, often 100% of it.  The "self-made" man's fortune frequently hinges on Government expenditures that he doesn't pay for (at least no more than anyone else).

[Dartful Dodger]

I don't know much about Food Stamps, but I remember reading this a week ago:

http://www.absforums.com/index.php?showtopic=23707

It's a kid on a forum bragging about his abuse of the system. A dumb video of him going into a store pretending he's retarded to buy stuff with his Food Stamps.

Getting to use food stamps and all it cost him was his soul, what a bargain.

Public aide helps most people, if the government cracked down on it, those abusing it now will just try harder, and still abuse it.  The only difference would be that the government will be spending more money on the abuse problem, and those that really need it will get less money.

I've been lucky with the dice God gave me, so I'm not going to criticize or look down on those that are in a situation I could have easily been in.

[DrewKaree]

Many kinds of assistance is simply acceptable.  The person who "pulls himself up by his bootstraps" and gets a college education, even if he pays full tuition, has his education paid for by tax money.  The person who goes into a regular business couldn't make money without using government created and maintained infrastructures: roads, water, power, etc.

and then uses his education to get a better paying job where he will pay a higher rate of taxes, spend more money (since he has more to spend) on items he wants, pays more taxes on those items....and so on, and so on.  You forgot to figure that into the equation

A shipping company, with the exception of toll roads, doesn't pay a higher percentage of the costs to maintain roads, even though that company uses the roads far more than an ordinary person, and without those roads the "self-made" man would be out of business.

Maybe you've forgotten the offices they have to maintain, the taxes they pay on those offices, the people they employ, who also pay taxes, et al.  Oh yeah, and there's a tax AND licensing fees they have to pay to be able to use those trucks to go from state to state, sometimes, just to be able to roll into a state...and so on, and so on.

Would DirecTV have sattelites in the sky without the hundreds of billions of dollars in research done by NASA?   Could any single company have accomplished the things that NASA has done?  If so, why haven't they?

thank goodness these companies aren't charged one thin red cent for the ability to use those sattelites  Somehow, the Wright brothers figured out how to fly.  Would the same type of thing happen nowadays?  Only if they can find a way to get around the governmental restrictions now in place.  And if it weren't for the aforementioned brothers, NASA would have been one big astronomy club.

A lot of poor people may look at the system and think to themselves, "How can I take advantage of that?"

Public aide helps most people, if the government cracked down on it, those abusing it now will just try harder, and still abuse it.  The only difference would be that the government will be spending more money on the abuse problem, and those that really need it will get less money.

Dodger, I understand that you're not saying it's all abuse. Shmokes, you paint the picture I'm speaking of.  If the ones who think to themselves what you propose were held to stricter standards, or a BETTER SYSTEM devised specifically to curb abuse, there would be less abuse.  There reaches a point where it's simply not worth it to jump through all the hoops to ABUSE the system.  Dodger, the example I give of getting a brick of cheese....who's going to be able to trade that consistently for beer/crack/whatever?  It's not requiring additional policing, AND it provides for the need that is there.  If that were back in place, or better yet, a system that gives them what is needed rather than what they want, more people would strive to better themselves to be able to obtain what they want.  The drive to better yourself is present in everyone, and only if it is encouraged will it ever develop.

Rich people do the same thing.  They just have the opportunity to take advantage of other governmental programs (much more lucrative ones).

Like the "Use a tax break to be able to start a company and take a few more poor people off the government teat" program, right?

Think of all the medical, chemical and technological research that is done in universities around the country that benefit, even CREATE businesses.  Tax dollars pay for that research, often 100% of it.

think of all the people griping about the high cost of their prescriptions when the people who DON'T get that research/grant money have to recoup their investment.  Think of the big companies that give back millions to local learning institutions, oftentimes with someone saying the government gave "often 100% of it", and how they're routinely painted as the evil that ails us.

The "self-made" man's fortune frequently hinges on Government expenditures that he doesn't pay for (at least no more than anyone else).

So the government better gimme back all my taxes (did I say tax cut?  ) and stay the heck outta my business so I can make my OWN bootstraps and pull myself up by my very own handmade custom bootstraps and stop relying on them.  

If government would get out of the way of the people it purports to "speak for", the people would figure out a better way to handle all the so-called "issues" facing society.  It works every time it's allowed to happen.  

Boy, ever since that tea party.....

[danny_galaga]

certainly straying now, but drew i think the wright brothers are a good example of what you're saying. after a number of years of methodically testing different designs and configurations, they succeeded in controlled flight. all expenses covered by them. the total bill? $1000. at the same time samual langley used his $50000 grant (!)  to acheive squat!!
I would disagree about your NASA assumption though. While the Wright Brothers are amongst my heroes, if they didn

[DrewKaree]

I have spell-check, but the hyperbole-check is a bit lacking.  

I agree with you that SOMEONE would have found a way to do what they did, in fact, they were one of a few at the time trying.  It is straying from the original point, but it's just a reply to how we all "benefit" from government's involvement in our lives.

[abrannan]

Rich people do the same thing.  They just have the opportunity to take advantage of other governmental programs (much more lucrative ones).

Like the "Use a tax break to be able to start a company and take a few more poor people off the government teat" program, right?

I'm thinking more like, "Start a shell company that allows me to write off more of my personal living expenses as "business expenses" and since the business doesn't acutally have to be profitable, I'll pay thousands of dollars less in taxes every year and keep that money for myself, instead of paying it to the government" (see Robert Kiyosaki, aka Rich Dad, Poor Dad) or perhaps "I'll mis-report profits, since I pay taxes on those, so I'll pay tens of thousands less in taxes, but I'll report higher earnings so my stock price will go up" (see, MCI, Enron, Tyco, and those are just the ones who got caught)

[DrewKaree]

I'm thinking more like, "Start a shell company that allows me to write off more of my personal living expenses as "business expenses" and since the business doesn't acutally have to be profitable, I'll pay thousands of dollars less in taxes every year and keep that money for myself, instead of paying it to the government" (see Robert Kiyosaki, aka Rich Dad, Poor Dad) or perhaps "I'll mis-report profits, since I pay taxes on those, so I'll pay tens of thousands less in taxes, but I'll report higher earnings so my stock price will go up" (see, MCI, Enron, Tyco, and those are just the ones who got caught)

You forgot the "I never spent a second of my life figuring out how cattle futures work, yet I got rich on them in just a few days by guessing my way through it" (see Ms. Rodham) or the "I'll marry a wealthy heiress (or two) to ketchup (insert groan) on all the money that should be coming my way" (see Mr Kerry).  

[DrewKaree]

How is it not ever noticed that once the government takes over some program, it inevitably gets so bloated and wasteful as to be more useless than helpful?

It's because of the regulatory oversight that all government programs and offices must follow.  I've seen more "investigative journalism" on how long of a smoke break government workers go on, or the fact that they're browsing non-work related sites on government time, and how much of a waste of taxpayers money that is.  Same stuff happens in private industry, but there's a completely different standard.  There are no Freedom of Information Act requests that private industries have to comply with.  Every last thing that any government agency does (unless it's classified) is potentially available to any person who wants to file a request for information.  That creates a lot of overhead, as processes have to be followed, and forms have to be created, filled out, filed, etc.  These are burdens that private industry doesn't have.  The only burdens that private industry has that the government doesn't are the burdens of profit and tax.  A private industry has to make a profit in some fashion.  It may be due to government subsidies, it may be refusing service to those to put too great a strain on the system.  

emphasis added is my own.  regulatory oversight....private industry has to make a profit in some fashion.

So we are to deduce that government doesn't/shouldn't make a profit    So essentially they're taking money from me in the form of taxes/licenses/fees/prohibitions/etc to use in their pursuit of a loss of money.

The reason you see all the "investigative journalism" on this is that it's the money removed from your check each week and fees added on whatever you purchase that pay the salaries of those people in government abusing the lack of standards and consequences for their actions.  You're correct when saying that the same thing happens in private industry and that there's a different standard.  The difference is that the person gets FIRED.  The difference is that if said company is concerned with productivity (which then creates higher profit) those people don't continue to work for that company, much less get a raise.  The difference is that private companies can't enact a law or amendment to bills passed that enlarge their pensions or give themselves benefits that Joe and Sally Muckenfutch have to pay through the nose for.  

That Mr Kerry is running commercials pointing to such bloat and promising to "streamline government" says that there's an elephant in the room no one wants to ask about.  

[Floyd10]

Ive been trying to keep out of this convo, but it happened... I'm bored... I was on stamps, and my mom on WIC. If it wasn't for them I would be dead. I thank... well, I don't thank anyone, but i would If I liked god-that we got the help that we needed.

[abrannan]

I'm thinking more like, "Start a shell company that allows me to write off more of my personal living expenses as "business expenses" and since the business doesn't acutally have to be profitable, I'll pay thousands of dollars less in taxes every year and keep that money for myself, instead of paying it to the government" (see Robert Kiyosaki, aka Rich Dad, Poor Dad) or perhaps "I'll mis-report profits, since I pay taxes on those, so I'll pay tens of thousands less in taxes, but I'll report higher earnings so my stock price will go up" (see, MCI, Enron, Tyco, and those are just the ones who got caught)

You forgot the "I never spent a second of my life figuring out how cattle futures work, yet I got rich on them in just a few days by guessing my way through it" (see Ms. Rodham) or the "I'll marry a wealthy heiress (or two) to ketchup (insert groan) on all the money that should be coming my way" (see Mr Kerry).  

I knew if I waited long enough, you'd try to turn this into a Republican vs Democrat debate.  The problem with your examples is that in no way do wither of those examples cheat the Government out of money.  I'm absolutely certain that both of those individuals have done a large number of things to avoid taxes, both legal and otherwise, but your examples aren't those things.  Your examples are like, "Well, I played all of my family's birthdays and won the Powerball."  It says how they got rich, but not how they're ripping off the Government.

[abrannan]

emphasis added is my own.  regulatory oversight....private industry has to make a profit in some fashion.

So we are to deduce that government doesn't/shouldn't make a profit    So essentially they're taking money from me in the form of taxes/licenses/fees/prohibitions/etc to use in their pursuit of a loss of money.

Absolutely the government shouldn't be forced to make a profit.  That allows for such things as, oh, say, the military.  You know, those people who are ensuring our freedom?

The reason you see all the "investigative journalism" on this is that it's the money removed from your check each week and fees added on whatever you purchase that pay the salaries of those people in government abusing the lack of standards and consequences for their actions.  You're correct when saying that the same thing happens in private industry and that there's a different standard.  The difference is that the person gets FIRED.

I call BullS**t.  Taking a smoke break in private industry does not get you fired.  Nor does browsing non-work related web sites.  However, I have seen government employees fired for similar behavior.

 The difference is that if said company is concerned with productivity (which then creates higher profit) those people don't continue to work for that company, much less get a raise.  The difference is that private companies can't enact a law or amendment to bills passed that enlarge their pensions or give themselves benefits that Joe and Sally Muckenfutch have to pay through the nose for.  

No, all that's required to get a raise in private industry is for the CEO or president of the company to say, I want a raise.  To get any sort of similar increase in the government is a lot harder.  I'm not talking about senators voting to raise their own salaries, I'm talking about the thousands of rank and file government workers.  You voted for your elected officials, so you have a say in whether or not governemnt workers get a raise.  Salaries in governemnt positions tend to pay a good deal less than their private industry counterparts.  I'm sure you cheered each and every Congressman who voted not to raise military pay over the past two years.  

That Mr. Kerry is running commercials pointing to such bloat and promising to "streamline government" says that there's an elephant in the room no one wants to ask about.  

And the size of goverment grew more under 4 years of GWB than under 8 years of Clinton, so what?  Promising to "streamline government" is exactly what GWB promised to do when he was elected.  Doesn't mean he or Kerry is actually going to do anything about it.  Plus, Kerry's streamlining Goverment is only about eliminating a large number of Contract positions.  Contractors who are employed by private industry contracting firms.  

[fredster]

People forget WE are the government. The goverment is for and by the people.  WE pay the taxes. WE choose how and who runs it.  It's up to US to make it work.

abrannan, I don't know where you work, but where I do you will be fired for going to non work related sites.

Every single president and candidate for every federal office has promised to do something about the size of the government. The fact is it's not easy or they would have.  Even state governments continue to grow.  When the card are on the table, I guess it just doesn't pay for them to use political capital to force a change like that. Somebody will complain about it if there are ANY cuts.  They will make it into a social issue if any money gets cut.  Who cuts what and where?  It's got to be complicated.

I think the basic function of the government is working, and working in the US better than most other countries in the world.  I think most of the programs in place make or made sense but the bottom line is this, there is just toooo much money on the table.  When there is a big pile of money there will be a lot of hands reaching for it.

Congress spends the money.  It's not the Judicial or Executive Branch, it's the congress that sends the budget out.  They split the total budget into 7 major pieces, and from there the various agents split it out into much smaller pieces.  I doubt if they can account for where it actually went.

How can you save money if you split trillions into $200 checks?  One agency can take their 500 million dollar budget and hide it.  How is the Congress going to know where every single dime is if they split into 7 chunks?  They only debate the big dollars.  

The State governements take care of some of it, and I think that's the way it should be.  We need to focus on those governments because we can control them easier than the fed.  We can make movements to help ourselves closer rather than farther.  It's the state systems that respond to us, not the Federal Government, regardless of R or D.

[abrannan]

People forget WE are the government. The goverment is for and by the people.  WE pay the taxes. WE choose how and who runs it.  It's up to US to make it work.

abrannan, I don't know where you work, but where I do you will be fired for going to non work related sites.

Every single president and candidate for every federal office has promised to do something about the size of the government. The fact is it's not easy or they would have.  Even state governments continue to grow.  When the card are on the table, I guess it just doesn't pay for them to use political capital to force a change like that. Somebody will complain about it if there are ANY cuts.  They will make it into a social issue if any money gets cut.  Who cuts what and where?  It's got to be complicated.

I think the basic function of the government is working, and working in the US better than most other countries in the world.  I think most of the programs in place make or made sense but the bottom line is this, there is just toooo much money on the table.  When there is a big pile of money there will be a lot of hands reaching for it.

Congress spends the money.  It's not the Judicial or Executive Branch, it's the congress that sends the budget out.  They split the total budget into 7 major pieces, and from there the various agents split it out into much smaller pieces.  I doubt if they can account for where it actually went.

How can you save money if you split trillions into $200 checks?  One agency can take their 500 million dollar budget and hide it.  How is the Congress going to know where every single dime is if they split into 7 chunks?  They only debate the big dollars.  

The State governements take care of some of it, and I think that's the way it should be.  We need to focus on those governments because we can control them easier than the fed.  We can make movements to help ourselves closer rather than farther.  It's the state systems that respond to us, not the Federal Government, regardless of R or D.

First off, well said.  I think you've taken all of the points I've tried to articulate and said them clearer than I ever would.

As far as where I work, I've worked a number of places.  I'm in IT security, so I know where folks are browsing.  The only place I've ever seen people fired for first offence porn surfing was in the federal government.  Now that's strictly anecdotal evidence, I know, but it's all I've got to work from.  

Now I've taken this topic waaaaay off it's starting point, and I'll post here no more.  But I'd love to continue the debate with anybody through PM.

[DrewKaree]

Now I've taken this topic waaaaay off it's starting point, and I'll post here no more.  But I'd love to continue the debate with anybody through PM.

read what the first post was/is about....an airing of his beliefs about people on food stamps after reading an article.  I don't think, of all the threads on this forum, that this one is the one to worry about taking off topic.  

As far as making it a Republican/Democrat issue, I can't believe you don't think your two examples have no slant whatsoever.  I didn't assume you might be a Democrat, although your examples could lead me to believe you are, just as you believe my examples lead to the conclusion that I'm a Republican.  I just don't like seeing a pointing of a finger without an acknowledgement of problems on both sides and, more importantly, an offer of a solution.  I could care less who solves the problem, just solve it.   That's why I stated how I'd fix the problem so AlexC wouldn't feel like his money wasn't going to "leeches" and those people were still helped and taken care of.  How would I solve the problems your examples point out?  Find the responsible parties (all the way down to the friggen doorman, if he's in on it, because having personal values sometimes includes the hard choice of losing/giving up your job while standing on core principles you hold) and either toss them in jail for the amount of time required to earn what they stole, or chain them up in a homeless shelter for as long as their actions went on to see how life on the streets is compared to the ivory tower.

Over the course of my postings, my beliefs DO run conservative, but not at the expense of becoming a robot.  

 Maybe if the government WERE forced to make a profit, they could do things that both Dems and Reps believe in, such as, oh, say, the military.  After they were done ensuring our freedom they could use the excess to fund the social programs wanted.  Or, best solution of all, in my opinion, use the money they already take from my check and figure out how a REAL budget works....like the one I'm stuck living with, only I don't have a built-in increase each year like they've done year after year.


You call BullS**t about taking a smoke break in private industry getting you fired or browsing non-work related web sites, yet I can give you several instances on my own job, and another person told you it happens regarding web browsing.  It's also not about the smoke break that someone gets fired, it's for the duration or abuse of the priveledge given to them or the waste of company time going to non-related web sites.  You also state that it's anecdotal evidence...in reference to someone being fired, or being fired for a first offense?  I ask, because you now have two who have told you that it does happen in the private sector.

...all that's required to get a raise in private industry is for the CEO or president of the company to say, I want a raise.

you refer to the top employee, but it works that way all the way down to the rank and file.  The government's top employees (representatives) DO have power to give themselves a raise, unlike a CEO.  If the private company finds him worth the money, they'll give it to him.  If not, and he believes he is deserving of it, he has a choice.  Personal principle, he either quits or stays on at the same salary.  He's simply NOT guaranteed a raise.  The thousands of rank and file government workers are given increases in pay based on length of service.  They get more money the longer they work regardless of merit!  You say salaries in governemnt positions tend to pay a good deal less than their private industry counterparts.  I call your term on that.  I know the difference in pay in my hometown between what I do and what a government employee gets paid.  I also know three other states where the disparity is exactly the same (slanted in the gov't employee's favor), not to mention the fact that they get additional perks I either pay through the nose for, or have to fend for myself to get equal items.

I'm sure you cheered each and every Congressman who voted not to raise military pay over the past two years.

I find that they get paid less than what I would accept to take the job, however, look for the countless stories (just read a newspaper, they like to tout this fact) from soldiers that "I just signed up because of the opportunity to go to college, learn a skill that'd help me in the real world, get knowledge to be able to get a better paying job in the private sector, and didn't want to go to war".  They are offering their lives for us, but I'm not so deluded as to think they're doing it for the money...and many others have stated they're doing it simply for the benefits military service gets them.  I'm trying to make it onto my local Fire Department soon.  I'm SOO looking forward to risking my life for that paycheck....c'mon    I am thankful for the sacrifice these people make daily doing things I can't do, and let them know it if at all possible, but I'm under no false impression that they signed up for the money or that they don't deserve the side benefits they get with their service.

"And the size of goverment grew more under 4 years of GWB than under 8 years of Clinton, so what?"  

Do you HEAR yourself?  I realize more than most that he's added to the bloat.  You sound so...not defeatist...resigned, I think, to the fact that it will continue to grow, and the "he did it worse" answer sounds like what you accuse me of.

Kerry's commercial doesn't speak to "streamlining government" being about eliminating a large number of contract positions.  He speaks of the paperwork logjam at the government level.  My solution?  Use the useless paperwork to light the cigarette on the overly long 37th smoke break of the day for one overpaid underworked government employee.

When the masses begin to realize that government uselessness increases the more intrusive it becomes, hopefully a revolt will occur.  Until then, those who don't want to take steps to help themselves will continue to look for government to take care of them, while those who don't need government to take care of them will continue to look for ways to keep goverment from intruding in their lives, making choices for them they never needed government to make.

whew.  I just find debate interesting. humor too...combining the two is the best of both worlds, such as this: