How Many People Around You Receive Food Stamps?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Up until a couple of years ago, you could take cash out at the Indian casinos in CA with EBT cards.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.

btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.

Why should it matter whether it is "cash benefits" or "food stamps"? It's all tax dollars, and they shouldn't be allowed to piss it away. And regarding the "economists," even if you subscribe to Keynsian theory, the purpose of welfare programs is not to stimulate the economy. It is provide a safety net. Birthday cake, cookies, candy, soda, and Lord knows what else are not a safety net.

[michigancat]

people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.

btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.

Why should it matter whether it is "cash benefits" or "food stamps"? It's all tax dollars, and they shouldn't be allowed to piss it away. And regarding the "economists," even if you subscribe to Keynsian theory, the purpose of welfare programs is not to stimulate the economy. It is provide a safety net. Birthday cake, cookies, candy, soda, and Lord knows what else are not a safety net.

we just need the government to take more control of these people's lives

[kim carnes]

people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.

btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.

Why should it matter whether it is "cash benefits" or "food stamps"? It's all tax dollars, and they shouldn't be allowed to piss it away. And regarding the "economists," even if you subscribe to Keynsian theory, the purpose of welfare programs is not to stimulate the economy. It is provide a safety net. Birthday cake, cookies, candy, soda, and Lord knows what else are not a safety net.

we just need the government to take more control of these people's lives

we need the gov't to relinquish control and not give them food stamps, thus empowering the people to buy food.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.

btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.

Why should it matter whether it is "cash benefits" or "food stamps"? It's all tax dollars, and they shouldn't be allowed to piss it away. And regarding the "economists," even if you subscribe to Keynsian theory, the purpose of welfare programs is not to stimulate the economy. It is provide a safety net. Birthday cake, cookies, candy, soda, and Lord knows what else are not a safety net.

we just need the government to take more control of these people's lives

we need the gov't to relinquish control and not give them food stamps, thus empowering the people to buy food.

Yes, get completely out of their lives and allow them to work anywhere they choose and attain heights only limited by their imagination. Freebies only stunt their growth potential.

[star seed 7]

They aren't allowed to work?   

[kim carnes]

people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.

btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.

Why should it matter whether it is "cash benefits" or "food stamps"? It's all tax dollars, and they shouldn't be allowed to piss it away. And regarding the "economists," even if you subscribe to Keynsian theory, the purpose of welfare programs is not to stimulate the economy. It is provide a safety net. Birthday cake, cookies, candy, soda, and Lord knows what else are not a safety net.

we just need the government to take more control of these people's lives

we need the gov't to relinquish control and not give them food stamps, thus empowering the people to buy food.

Yes, get completely out of their lives and allow them to work anywhere they choose and attain heights only limited by their imagination. Freebies only stunt their growth potential.

sans food stamps, the sky is the limit for these individuals

[Rage Against the McKee]

Up until a couple of years ago, you could take cash out at the Indian casinos in CA with EBT cards.

Those Indians probably deserve the government money more than the welfare recipients who frequent their casinos, anyway.

[felix rex]

Honest question: Is anyone still discriminating against native americans? I guess I could believe that it was out there, but I'd be surprised. Is there a father in Pratt who doesn't want his daughter dating them or something? Are there nice JOCO neighborhoods who are upset if they move in?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

we just need the government to take more control of these people's lives how tax dollars are spent

FYP.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Honest question: Is anyone still discriminating against native americans? I guess I could believe that it was out there, but I'd be surprised. Is there a father in Pratt who doesn't want his daughter dating them or something? Are there nice JOCO neighborhoods who are upset if they move in?

The US government is, but I don't know of any people who discriminate against them.

[felix rex]

Well, that sounds ridiculous and made-up

[Institutional Control]

I believe the Washington Redskins are still oppressing the Native Americans.

[Rage Against the McKee]

People living on Indian Reservations are not allowed to own land. The US government mandates that the land be communal. Of course, nobody is going to invest in a property that they do not own, so they all live in trailers. They also have a pitiful education system, high crime rates, and poor health care. There is zero economic development because a business cannot enforce a contract on tribal land. Simply eliminating the Bureau of Indian Affairs would do wonders for the Indian Nations, as it would allow them to actually control the land they occupy. Taking it a step further and eliminating the reservations completely would be much better.

[felix rex]

That all sounds more mismanaged than discriminatory. I assume all native americans are in favor of eliminating reservations and the (cringe-inducingly named) Bureau of Indian Affairs?

[Emo EMAW]

people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.

btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.

What's the criteria for "effective?"

[Rage Against the McKee]

That all sounds more mismanaged than discriminatory. I assume all native americans are in favor of eliminating reservations and the (cringe-inducingly named) Bureau of Indian Affairs?

They are a sovereign nation, where US courts have no jurisdiction to enforce contracts, yet they are not allowed to manage their own land through private ownership. Basically, they get the worst of both worlds. Why, if they are a sovereign nation, should it matter whether Native Americans favor eliminating the US Government's Bureau of Indian Affairs? We should eliminate it because it would be much better for the reservations in the long run. At least then the problems would be the fault of the Indian tribes themselves, rather than the US Government who oversees them. Just allow private ownership of all of the reservation land, limiting the initial owners to members of the reservation. Extend US court jurisdiction onto reservations. Then, the reservation would only exist in name only, and most, if not all of their problems would go away in time.

[Emo EMAW]

they are not allowed to manage their own land through private ownership

Wait, what?  There is a ton of deeded land on reservations, owned and managed by individuals.

[Rage Against the McKee]

they are not allowed to manage their own land through private ownership

Wait, what?  There is a ton of deeded land on reservations, owned and managed by individuals.

Yeah, I should have said most of them. The majority of the land is communal.

[michigancat]

People think Native Americans are all drunks and/or run a casino. 

[Emo EMAW]

they are not allowed to manage their own land through private ownership

Wait, what?  There is a ton of deeded land on reservations, owned and managed by individuals.

Yeah, I should have said most of them. The majority of the land is communal.

Ya, also my opinion was skewed because I'm most familiar with the Fort Peck Reservation in NE MT.  It has a lot of deeded land, maybe 30 or 40%.  Not near as much as the Rocky Boys or the Fort Belknap, which is more like 5%.  The Crow's though have quite a bunch.

I do agree with you though, they should be able to do what they want. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

From the Bureau of Indian Affairs FAQ:

Do Indians have the right to own land?
Yes. As U.S. citizens, Indians can buy and hold title to land purchased with their own funds. Nearly all
lands of Indian Tribes, however, are held in trust for them by the United States. There is no general law
that permits a tribe to sell its land. Individual Indians also own trust land, which they can sell, but only
upon the approval of the Secretary of the Interior or his representative. If an Indian wants to extinguish
the trust title to his land and hold title like any other citizen (with all the attendant responsibilities such as
paying taxes), he can do so if the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized representative determines that
he is able to manage his own affairs. This is a protection for the individual.

GMAFB. Yes, let's call them a "sovereign nation" and then put regulations and restrictions on them that we don't put on people outside of that "sovereign nation".

[Emo EMAW]

People think Native Americans are all drunks and/or run a casino.

This is, sadly, and for the most part, true.  I will say the ones I've dealt with running the casinos weren't drunks but were savvy businessmen.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Why are Indians sometimes referred to as Native Americans?
The term, "Native American," came into usage in the 1960's to denote the groups served by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs: American Indians and Alaska Native (Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts of Alaska). Later the
term also included Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders in some Federal programs. It, therefore, came
into disfavor among some Indian groups. The preferred term is American Indian.
The Eskimos and Aleuts in Alaska are two culturally distinct groups and are sensitive about being
included under the "Indian" designation. They prefer, "Alaska Native."

Huh. I guess you learn something new every day.

[Emo EMAW]

If we're playing did you know about Indians...

Can't recall what the agency that dealt with them was called before it was the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but anyway it was very corrupt, mostly white people taking stuff destined for the Indians and selling it for themselves.  So the government reorganized it and staffed it with Quakers because they felt they would do their duty with honesty and conviction.  This was in the late 1800's.