Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: More GOP "caring" for the poor rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
North Carolina Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper is criticizing a state budget provision by Senate Republicans that his administration says would block federal food stamp benefits to over 130,000 people who qualify because they’re also receiving other government benefits.


http://www.journalnow.com/news/state_region/cooper-criticize...

The defense of their actions is given by State Senator Wise

Quote:
For most people, the food stamps program is about fighting hunger.

For North Carolina state Sen. Ralph Hise (R), however, it seems to be about fighting the concept of unfairness — even if it means booting 133,000 human beings off of the food assistance rolls.

Hise defended the Republican senate leadership’s decision to rescind a 2010 expansion of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) eligibility by arguing that the current system, under which more people are less hungry, isn’t fair.

The 2010 rules make anyone who qualifies for another North Carolina poverty assistance program eligible for food stamps as well, for households with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. It’s a common policy known as broad-based or categorical eligibility, which streamlines the administrative process for poverty programs whose benefits come from federal dollars, not state budgets.

But to Hise, local NBC affiliate WRAL reports, that program creates a pernicious “double standard” for food assistance.

“You’ve got a family of four making $40,000 who can’t qualify because their children are school-aged, but you’ve got another family that maybe makes more, but who qualified for child care subsidies and therefore qualified for food stamps as well,” Hise said. “What we are eliminating is that fact that another program automatically qualifies you for food stamps.”


https://thinkprogress.org/north-carolina-food-stamps-slashed...

Sen. Hise is of course ignoring the other solution if he was so concerned with fairness, which is make sure no one is hungry rather than increase the number who are.

And this does not even have the fallback position of saving the state taxpayers money because the food program is paid for with federal funds.
And in fact it may actually cost the state money (from the Thinkprogess link above)

Quote:
By forcing state aid workers to return to case-by-case evaluations for families seeking food stamps who are currently eligible categorically — a change that requires state workers to spend working hours conducting asset tests on applicants — Hise’s measure will drive state costs up.

Pennsylvania’s recent experience is instructive: The state abandoned asset tests for SNAP in 2015 after the governor’s mansion changed hands, a move that helped drastically speed up processing time for applications — thereby doing more work with fewer staff hours, saving taxpayers money.


In essence North Carolina will be paying more so that they can ensure more folks will go hungry. Wonder what happened to the GOP mantra of "making government more efficient? Which probably moved Gov Cooper to make this observation

Quote:
“This food makes a real difference for families who need it, and doesn’t cost North Carolina any state tax money,” Cooper said in a release, contrasting the provision with other GOP budget changes that cut income tax rates for all residents, including the highest wage-earners. “Lining the pockets of millionaires while going out of the way to make it harder for children to eat is just wrong.”


Do GOP legislators have to check their soul at the door when they get elected. Because a lot of them are sure acting like it.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
They can't check something at the door that's already been bought and paid for.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sniper Dan
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
...And this does not even have the fallback position of saving the state taxpayers money because the food program is paid for with federal funds...


How the hell are North Carolina residents exempt from paying federal taxes?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SniperDan84 wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
...And this does not even have the fallback position of saving the state taxpayers money because the food program is paid for with federal funds...


How the hell are North Carolina residents exempt from paying federal taxes?

'cuz taking care of the poor is a bad idea with anyone's money, the Oligarch's will be proud.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Stupid iz, as stupid does.

NC - making the Confederacy proud via the Jefferson Davis Reach-around and tug.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sniper Dan
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
rcbevco wrote:
SniperDan84 wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
...And this does not even have the fallback position of saving the state taxpayers money because the food program is paid for with federal funds...


How the hell are North Carolina residents exempt from paying federal taxes?

'cuz taking care of the poor is a bad idea with anyone's money, the Oligarch's will be proud.


I didn't say that; I pointed out an absurd point from the original post.

Edit: Punctuation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SniperDan84 wrote:
rcbevco wrote:
SniperDan84 wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
...And this does not even have the fallback position of saving the state taxpayers money because the food program is paid for with federal funds...


How the hell are North Carolina residents exempt from paying federal taxes?

'cuz taking care of the poor is a bad idea with anyone's money, the Oligarch's will be proud.


I didn't say that; I pointed out an absurd point from the original post.

Edit: Punctuation.


1. It doesn't cost the state a dime so nothing is saved on the state level

2. Nothing in this budget gives any money back to the state tax payers as far as federal taxes are concerned

So not an absurd point at all actually when viewed logically

Leaving out of course the morally horrific spectacle of a state cutting taxes to the wealthy while making it harder for children to actually get fed


6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sniper Dan
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
SniperDan84 wrote:
rcbevco wrote:
SniperDan84 wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
...And this does not even have the fallback position of saving the state taxpayers money because the food program is paid for with federal funds...


How the hell are North Carolina residents exempt from paying federal taxes?

'cuz taking care of the poor is a bad idea with anyone's money, the Oligarch's will be proud.


I didn't say that; I pointed out an absurd point from the original post.

Edit: Punctuation.


1. It doesn't cost the state a dime so nothing is saved on the state level

2. Nothing in this budget gives any money back to the state tax payers as far as federal taxes are concerned

So not an absurd point at all actually when viewed logically

Leaving out of course the morally horrific spectacle of a state cutting taxes to the wealthy while making it harder for children to actually get fed


1. You said state taxpayers in the original post. Do they or do they not pay federal taxes?

2. Okay. There isn't a direct oh since this money isn't spent everyone gets 3 cents back but if the federal government spends less, then either the deficit goes down (meaning we'll have our taxes go up less when the government needs more money) or the government will cut our taxes because the Feds need less. Alternatively, are you saying that we literally should never cut any federal spending because unless the bill actually puts the money in our pockets it doesn't save us anything?

Although I'm not a fan of the Republicans pushing through a bunch of odd changes in the middle of the night (didn't read all of the details of what went through but some of the individual items sound sketchy) the Republicans are technically cutting people who don't actually qualify from an income standpoint (i.e. the family makes too much). The policy Republicans are removing says since a family qualifies for something, the family should just get everything even if it isn't relevant to a family's needs.

Now if you want to debate at what level a family should qualify for SNAP, go for it, but just because a household gets a different benefit why should they get them all? Or is that the policy you are debating, that a family who gets one should just get them all?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the main part you are missing is that while cutting snap as a cost cutting measure sounds budgetarily responsible, they're cutting taxes for the oligarchs which isn't. Winners and losers?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SniperDan84 wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
SniperDan84 wrote:
rcbevco wrote:
SniperDan84 wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
...And this does not even have the fallback position of saving the state taxpayers money because the food program is paid for with federal funds...


How the hell are North Carolina residents exempt from paying federal taxes?

'cuz taking care of the poor is a bad idea with anyone's money, the Oligarch's will be proud.


I didn't say that; I pointed out an absurd point from the original post.

Edit: Punctuation.


1. It doesn't cost the state a dime so nothing is saved on the state level

2. Nothing in this budget gives any money back to the state tax payers as far as federal taxes are concerned

So not an absurd point at all actually when viewed logically

Leaving out of course the morally horrific spectacle of a state cutting taxes to the wealthy while making it harder for children to actually get fed


1. You said state taxpayers in the original post. Do they or do they not pay federal taxes?

2. Okay. There isn't a direct oh since this money isn't spent everyone gets 3 cents back but if the federal government spends less, then either the deficit goes down (meaning we'll have our taxes go up less when the government needs more money) or the government will cut our taxes because the Feds need less. Alternatively, are you saying that we literally should never cut any federal spending because unless the bill actually puts the money in our pockets it doesn't save us anything?

Although I'm not a fan of the Republicans pushing through a bunch of odd changes in the middle of the night (didn't read all of the details of what went through but some of the individual items sound sketchy) the Republicans are technically cutting people who don't actually qualify from an income standpoint (i.e. the family makes too much). The policy Republicans are removing says since a family qualifies for something, the family should just get everything even if it isn't relevant to a family's needs.

Now if you want to debate at what level a family should qualify for SNAP, go for it, but just because a household gets a different benefit why should they get them all? Or is that the policy you are debating, that a family who gets one should just get them all?


1, You missed out the part where the state costs will go up because of this extra burden. Meaning that state taxpayers will not only no be seeing any money back, but they will have to pay out more because of it. Remembering of course that this comes from a Federal Budget where all the nations taxpayers chip in so an offset in this case. You are mixing up being a state taxpayer and a federal taxpayer than sport.

And you also missed out this part as well to qualify the family has to qualify for another state POVERTY program. It is not as though we are giving it to the undeserving so "technically" they are cutting food possibilities for the children and others in need. I have news for you boss if you are in a poverty program you are in need. Is this really such a bizarre concept to wrap your mind around.

And it is particularly revolting at a time when taxes for the wealthy are being rolled back, not only in North Carolina, but everywhere. Money for folks for the wealthy in the state to get even more, but for the poor, we have to put some extra hurdles in the way before we can address your basic sustenance. As the stories point out, the hideousness of the bill is basically that this will cost the state more. So the state will be paying for the "privilege" of punishing the poor. Whatever soul the GOP may have claim to before has officially shriveled up and blown away
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sniper Dan
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
1, You missed out the part where the state costs will go up because of this extra burden.


No, you said

Quote:
And this does not even have the fallback position of saving the state taxpayers money because the food program is paid for with federal funds. And in fact it may actually cost the state money (from the Thinkprogess link above)


May does not equal will. in addition, the first sentence (which I called out) implies that taxpayers aren't affected by the use of federal funds. Federal funds come from the Federal government. My point was, where do you think federal funds come from...the people of the United States. Who is part of the United States? North Carolina! Hence the absurdity of the assertion.

Kumitedad wrote:
...You are mixing up being a state taxpayer and a federal taxpayer than sport....


I'm not mixing them up at all. I'm pointing out that North Carolina taxpayers pay both federal and state taxes, so saving money from either source could save them money.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


First for the record I support safety net programs and don't think we should be cutting taxes on the rich until the budget is balanced and the deficit massively reduced.

I also think before making any changes they should look into the added worker costs to see if this will actually cost more than it saves.

All that said two things:

Quote:


The 2010 rules make anyone who qualifies for another North Carolina poverty assistance program eligible for food stamps as well, for households with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. It’s a common policy known as broad-based or categorical eligibility, which streamlines the administrative process for poverty programs whose benefits come from federal dollars, not state budgets.


First to be clear, the problem they are trying to address is that some programs which obviously were intended to help the working poor, who aren't actually below the poverty line, still get some assistance with things that are genuine hardships for THEM, end up qualifying them for programs that were meant for people below the poverty line.

Now I agree that if this pool of people is small the added administrative costs wipe out any savings to the taxpayers this streamlining rule causes. But if the pool of people is large that might not be true.

Then I have to ask, are they mandated to get this extra assistance or is it merely available to them if they request it? Because one is a bigger potential problem than the other. (See my story below)

The potential problem with streamlining is that different programs are originally written to address different problems. A family with two working parents might not be having any problem buying groceries but still not be able to afford good child care or cover some non-routine medical costs etc. So clearly in the state above they have a program to help with child care costs that you can still qualify for even if you make double the income that would put you below the poverty line. Which is great... child care is important. But clearly that program is going to have different qualifying paperwork than a food assistance one will.


----------

(Story about why mandated can be an issue)

Washington State has a streamlining system in place that I dealt with when I had my disabled mother move up to live with me. I was making an engineers salary and could easily pay for her food and housing large enough for us both. But she had no insurance and her prescriptions needs were beyond my ability to pay out of pocket. They were thousands of dollars a month.

So eventually we applied for her to get state assistance with medical costs. She qualified, she couldn't work and therefore had no income. However because she qualified for medical assistance she HAD to take both food stamps AND a monthly cash stipend. We told them she didn't need that at this time, because she lived with me. They insisted it was a package deal, take it all or take none of it.

So we took it all, but that caused issues because under the rules for the cash and ETB card, she had to be able to prove that money went for her food and shelter. Which according to the rules meant we were not supposed to make meals together (since I wasn't supposed to eat any food bought with food stamps) and she was supposed to have records proving she helped pay for her lodging.

So at first she just didn't use the ETB card, but eventually as the amount available to her grew they started to consider that an asset which jeopardized her eligibility for the medical assistance.

So we ended up doing something we both hated... which was pretending on paper we did things we didn't do, like make two separate dinners daily etc. Then she often would just buy a bunch of stuff on sale with her ETB card for us to drop off at the local Food Bank. Plus she gave me a check every month for "rent" which I then cashed and put the money into an separate account for her to use for her uncovered medical things like eye glasses and dental care.

We still felt uncomfortable filling out the required paperwork because we didn't actually follow the rules and eat separately etc. and we both would have been happier just opting out of those benefits to begin with. But we couldn't under the streamlining rules in this State.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SniperDan84 wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
1, You missed out the part where the state costs will go up because of this extra burden.


No, you said

Quote:
And this does not even have the fallback position of saving the state taxpayers money because the food program is paid for with federal funds. And in fact it may actually cost the state money (from the Thinkprogess link above)


May does not equal will. in addition, the first sentence (which I called out) implies that taxpayers aren't affected by the use of federal funds. Federal funds come from the Federal government. My point was, where do you think federal funds come from...the people of the United States. Who is part of the United States? North Carolina! Hence the absurdity of the assertion.

Kumitedad wrote:
...You are mixing up being a state taxpayer and a federal taxpayer than sport....


I'm not mixing them up at all. I'm pointing out that North Carolina taxpayers pay both federal and state taxes, so saving money from either source could save them money.


Missed this part of my example there

Quote:
Pennsylvania’s recent experience is instructive: The state abandoned asset tests for SNAP in 2015 after the governor’s mansion changed hands, a move that helped drastically speed up processing time for applications — thereby doing more work with fewer staff hours, saving taxpayers money.


One does not know for sure, but the Pennsylvania example point to probably yes.

So again

Is this program costing any money to the state - nope

Is getting rid of this procedure means money will be coming back to the state taxpayer - nope.

Is this procedure costing extra - nope actually saving money.

What part of this basic logic is not impinging on your consciousness? Seeing as how State officials actually do not effect how much taxpayers will be assessed.

As for the whole Fed Tax assessment will go, you don't have the numbers to prove your case as well.

Might wish to stop trying to justify sending folks to bed hungry. The numbers aren't there
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.