(04-14-2015 12:10 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 12:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  We should also be concerned about the cost effectiveness of these programs, and remember that their purpose is to provide aid. Each government employee checking on the work/volunteer hours of each food stamp recipient is taking money from the intended purpose and spending it on oversight.

If it's cost effective and we can provide reasonable opportunities for people throughout the nation, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. It's just that those last two issues are usually ignored.

Trust me on this. If it costs money, you can bet the republicans will be all over it.

What? lol

It's not fair to apply to all republicans, but the concept of starving the beast also refers to ineffectively spending government money so as to hasten it's decline. It's easy to add lots of restrictions to welfare in order to lower it's efficiency and it's positive societal effect, then point to that inefficiency and small outcome as evidence of the failure of social programs.

I don't think that those on this thread are consciously supporting that, if at all, but it is a real idea championed by some small government types.

Restrictions, oversight, and cutting wasteful spending should be practiced across the board when it comes to any program funded by the taxpayers of the United States. Welfare programs are certainly not exempt from that.

Adding restrictions will not "lower efficiency." I'm not sure efficiency could be worse than it is right now.

Take education for example. We spend more than any country in the world (spending has increased exponentially in the last 35 years), yet our test scores continue to plummet down the world rankings. That is a major efficiency problem that needs to be addressed.

Cutting spending needs to happen. No matter what, folks are going to get butthurt about it and spit out rhetorical nonsense like "they want poor people to die" or "they want our kids to be stupid" or "they don't care about our military." But it needs to happen.

(04-14-2015 12:21 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Restrictions, oversight, and cutting wasteful spending should be practiced across the board when it comes to any program funded by the taxpayers of the United States. Welfare programs are certainly not exempt from that.

Adding restrictions will not "lower efficiency." I'm not sure efficiency could be worse than it is right now.

Take education for example. We spend more than any country in the world (spending has increased exponentially in the last 35 years), yet our test scores continue to plummet down the world rankings. That is a major efficiency problem that needs to be addressed.

Cutting spending needs to happen. No matter what, folks are going to get butthurt about it and spit out rhetorical nonsense like "they want poor people to die" or "they want our kids to be stupid" or "they don't care about our military." But it needs to happen.

I think you're misunderstanding me, I fully agree with government oversight and making sure it is efficient as possible without losing functionality. My concern for efficiency is why I asked the question about the cost of this additional requirement and the ability we have to provide opportunities to fulfill this requirement nationwide.

In the 'starve the beast' scenario, it goes as follows.

1. Introduce costly oversight for welfare in the guise of preventing fraud or waste. This results in less overall welfare funds reaching the actual recipients, and more being spent on a bloated government administration.

2. Introduce more requirements to receive welfare, requirements that ignore transportation issues, work requirements, and geographic factors (if you live somewhere without work/need childcare to work/etc) in the hopes of eliminating as many welfare recipients as possible.

3. Point to the Welfare system, now bloated with administrative mess and serving only a fraction of the welfare recipients it should be, as an example of government ineptitude, and use it as an excuse to eliminate social policies.

Again, not saying that's what you're doing or even that is what anyone here is doing, I'm just saying that we should be careful of those who want to introduce regulations into social programs without providing evidence of there being fraud or abuse in the first place. A little off topic from the OP I know, but your response just seemed like you had the wrong impression about my post.

(04-14-2015 12:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 12:21 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Restrictions, oversight, and cutting wasteful spending should be practiced across the board when it comes to any program funded by the taxpayers of the United States. Welfare programs are certainly not exempt from that.

Adding restrictions will not "lower efficiency." I'm not sure efficiency could be worse than it is right now.

Take education for example. We spend more than any country in the world (spending has increased exponentially in the last 35 years), yet our test scores continue to plummet down the world rankings. That is a major efficiency problem that needs to be addressed.

Cutting spending needs to happen. No matter what, folks are going to get butthurt about it and spit out rhetorical nonsense like "they want poor people to die" or "they want our kids to be stupid" or "they don't care about our military." But it needs to happen.

I think you're misunderstanding me, I fully agree with government oversight and making sure it is efficient as possible without losing functionality. My concern for efficiency is why I asked the question about the cost of this additional requirement and the ability we have to provide opportunities to fulfill this requirement nationwide.

In the 'starve the beast' scenario, it goes as follows.

1. Introduce costly oversight for welfare in the guise of preventing fraud or waste. This results in less overall welfare funds reaching the actual recipients, and more being spent on a bloated government administration.

2. Introduce more requirements to receive welfare, requirements that ignore transportation issues, work requirements, and geographic factors (if you live somewhere without work/need childcare to work/etc) in the hopes of eliminating as many welfare recipients as possible.

3. Point to the Welfare system, now bloated with administrative mess and serving only a fraction of the welfare recipients it should be, as an example of government ineptitude, and use it as an excuse to eliminate social policies.

Again, not saying that's what you're doing or even that is what anyone here is doing, I'm just saying that we should be careful of those who want to introduce regulations into social programs without providing evidence of there being fraud or abuse in the first place. A little off topic from the OP I know, but your response just seemed like you had the wrong impression about my post.

I may have.

You're right, though. Financial balance is difficult to come by when enforcing bureaucracy with bureaucracy. The end result should be "money saved," but honestly that rarely happens these days.

However, there is evidence of waste and abuse of benefits....especially with SNAP and EBT.

Quote: You're right, though. Financial balance is difficult to come by when enforcing bureaucracy with bureaucracy. The end result should be "money saved," but honestly that rarely happens these days.

I just think it behooves all of those interested in finding the most efficient federal government model to remember that those who have an inherent ideological opposition to federal social programs can be playing an entirely separate game which aims for inefficiency as part of a larger goal. Of course efficient oversight should be implemented, but we should base that oversight on objective evidence and not vague threats of abuse.

Quote: However, there is evidence of waste and abuse of benefits....especially with SNAP and EBT.

I accept that anecdotally that might be the case for you, hell even for me, but to provide a reasoned and efficient response to this abuse/waste requires that we quantify the rate first. If not, we can't realistically decide an appropriate or cost effective approach.

(04-14-2015 12:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 12:21 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Restrictions, oversight, and cutting wasteful spending should be practiced across the board when it comes to any program funded by the taxpayers of the United States. Welfare programs are certainly not exempt from that.

Adding restrictions will not "lower efficiency." I'm not sure efficiency could be worse than it is right now.

Take education for example. We spend more than any country in the world (spending has increased exponentially in the last 35 years), yet our test scores continue to plummet down the world rankings. That is a major efficiency problem that needs to be addressed.

Cutting spending needs to happen. No matter what, folks are going to get butthurt about it and spit out rhetorical nonsense like "they want poor people to die" or "they want our kids to be stupid" or "they don't care about our military." But it needs to happen.

I think you're misunderstanding me, I fully agree with government oversight and making sure it is efficient as possible without losing functionality. My concern for efficiency is why I asked the question about the cost of this additional requirement and the ability we have to provide opportunities to fulfill this requirement nationwide.

In the 'starve the beast' scenario, it goes as follows.

1. Introduce costly oversight for welfare in the guise of preventing fraud or waste. This results in less overall welfare funds reaching the actual recipients, and more being spent on a bloated government administration.

2. Introduce more requirements to receive welfare, requirements that ignore transportation issues, work requirements, and geographic factors (if you live somewhere without work/need childcare to work/etc) in the hopes of eliminating as many welfare recipients as possible.

3. Point to the Welfare system, now bloated with administrative mess and serving only a fraction of the welfare recipients it should be, as an example of government ineptitude, and use it as an excuse to eliminate social policies.

Again, not saying that's what you're doing or even that is what anyone here is doing, I'm just saying that we should be careful of those who want to introduce regulations into social programs without providing evidence of there being fraud or abuse in the first place. A little off topic from the OP I know, but your response just seemed like you had the wrong impression about my post.

So your solution is 'eff it, just give'em the money in perpetuity?

The whole damn system is screwed up in that it doesn't incentivize the behaviors that are desirable (get off the dole and work) and all but does incentivize sitting on the porch and waiting for that monthly check to come.

It is now used as a means for buying votes on the taxpayers dime. "Don't vote for that guy, he'll make granny eat dog food."

At some point, we have to set up a safety net that helps when needed, encourages getting off the system, and doesn't see 75% of the costs eaten up by admin costs.

We are smart people in the US. This is something that can and will eventually have to be done. Some folks will be butthurt, but we don't have infinite funds. Every dollar we spend on this is money not spent on things like infrastructure, etc.

Step one is to remove this spending from the "vote buying" realm. Good luck with that..............................

Creb, I think you need to read the post your replying to because you're not really doing anything except 1. misinterpreting my statements drastically and 2. not addressing anything I said except with vague talking points.

(04-14-2015 01:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote: You're right, though. Financial balance is difficult to come by when enforcing bureaucracy with bureaucracy. The end result should be "money saved," but honestly that rarely happens these days.

I just think it behooves all of those interested in finding the most efficient federal government model to remember that those who have an inherent ideological opposition to federal social programs can be playing an entirely separate game which aims for inefficiency as part of a larger goal. Of course efficient oversight should be implemented, but we should base that oversight on objective evidence and not vague threats of abuse.

Quote: However, there is evidence of waste and abuse of benefits....especially with SNAP and EBT.

I accept that anecdotally that might be the case for you, hell even for me, but to provide a reasoned and efficient response to this abuse/waste requires that we quantify the rate first. If not, we can't realistically decide an appropriate or cost effective approach.

That is a reasonable line of thought. However, my fear is that the same government that will send thousands of tax refund checks to the same address likely has no idea of the levels of welfare abuse and no method to track it. All we will ever get out of them are guesses.

If they can't quantify the rate - then what?

(04-14-2015 12:21 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Restrictions, oversight, and cutting wasteful spending should be practiced across the board when it comes to any program funded by the taxpayers of the United States. Welfare programs are certainly not exempt from that.

Adding restrictions will not "lower efficiency." I'm not sure efficiency could be worse than it is right now.

Take education for example. We spend more than any country in the world (spending has increased exponentially in the last 35 years), yet our test scores continue to plummet down the world rankings. That is a major efficiency problem that needs to be addressed.

Cutting spending needs to happen. No matter what, folks are going to get butthurt about it and spit out rhetorical nonsense like "they want poor people to die" or "they want our kids to be stupid" or "they don't care about our military." But it needs to happen.

too many unsustainable people.....it just wont work at the current pace....

and people make fun of communism and china's restriction regarding puppies....

yepper.....peoples are goings to gets theirs feelings hurts ones ways ors thees others....

(04-14-2015 01:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote: You're right, though. Financial balance is difficult to come by when enforcing bureaucracy with bureaucracy. The end result should be "money saved," but honestly that rarely happens these days.

I just think it behooves all of those interested in finding the most efficient federal government model to remember that those who have an inherent ideological opposition to federal social programs can be playing an entirely separate game which aims for inefficiency as part of a larger goal. Of course efficient oversight should be implemented, but we should base that oversight on objective evidence and not vague threats of abuse.

Quote: However, there is evidence of waste and abuse of benefits....especially with SNAP and EBT.

I accept that anecdotally that might be the case for you, hell even for me, but to provide a reasoned and efficient response to this abuse/waste requires that we quantify the rate first. If not, we can't realistically decide an appropriate or cost effective approach.

Indeed. Which requires, at least temporarily, some kind of organized oversight. As long as it saves money in the end, I'm all for it.

(04-14-2015 01:30 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 01:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote: You're right, though. Financial balance is difficult to come by when enforcing bureaucracy with bureaucracy. The end result should be "money saved," but honestly that rarely happens these days.

I just think it behooves all of those interested in finding the most efficient federal government model to remember that those who have an inherent ideological opposition to federal social programs can be playing an entirely separate game which aims for inefficiency as part of a larger goal. Of course efficient oversight should be implemented, but we should base that oversight on objective evidence and not vague threats of abuse.

Quote: However, there is evidence of waste and abuse of benefits....especially with SNAP and EBT.

I accept that anecdotally that might be the case for you, hell even for me, but to provide a reasoned and efficient response to this abuse/waste requires that we quantify the rate first. If not, we can't realistically decide an appropriate or cost effective approach.

That is a reasonable line of thought. However, my fear is that the same government that will send thousands of tax refund checks to the same address likely has no idea of the levels of welfare abuse and no method to track it. All we will ever get out of them are guesses.

If they can't quantify the rate - then what?

XACLY! ...and regardless of the governing structure, it isn't possible nor efficient...more specifically relative to the rate of population increase and ability (lack of)

You don't track all of them, you track a randomized sample of them. 700 or so should be good to gather useful data, and is far from the unreasonable task that you're portraying it to be. Welfare is just government insurance, and insurance companies track fraud. This isn't an impossibility, not really that difficult.