How Many People Around You Receive Food Stamps?

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

Makes sense. We can't let the Indians manage their own affairs. They are all drunks and it's for their own protection, really.

[Institutional Control]

I went to an Indian casino once that didn't serve alcohol. The dealer told me, "Native Americans are very anti-alcohol". I said, "Yeah, not the one I was married too."

[Rage Against the McKee]

I went to an Indian casino once that didn't serve alcohol. The dealer told me, "Native Americans are very anti-alcohol". I said, "Yeah, not the one I was married too."

What state was this in?

[Emo EMAW]

One buddy told me it's illegal to sell Indians alcohol in Alaska. Still not sure if I believe him.

[Institutional Control]

I went to an Indian casino once that didn't serve alcohol. The dealer told me, "Native Americans are very anti-alcohol". I said, "Yeah, not the one I was married too."

What state was this in?

Oklahoma. It was 3 years ago, that casino now sells alcohol.

[SkinnyBenny]

Certain parts of Alaska that are heavily Native are the equivalent of dry counties. But, like, Natives in Anchorage or Fairbanks or whatever are free to 'pak.

[puniraptor]

One buddy told me it's illegal to sell Indians alcohol in Alaska. Still not sure if I believe him.

a lot of towns and have laws banning all alcohol. I watched the Alaska State Troopers show and they spend all their time busting guys homebrewing "beer" in milkjugs and bathtubs and crap.

[Rage Against the McKee]

One buddy told me it's illegal to sell Indians alcohol in Alaska. Still not sure if I believe him.

That's only true if you are trying to sell them alcohol on a reservation that prohibits it.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-06-alaska_N.htm?hiddenMacValue=0&hiddenMacPrintValue=0

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

All of the Indian casinos around me are great. You would think you were in Vegas with good restaurants, bars, shops, high rise hotels, etc.  The tribal members are building custom homes on 2-3 acres all over their reservations. They have finally found a way to screw the white man (lots of Asians, too) out of their money. Good for them.

[Emo EMAW]

There's one development they're trying to push through in Tulsa that would put an Indian shopping center right next to an existing shopping center, only the Indians wouldn't have to charge sales tax. 

[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?

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.

To clarify, if they're sovereign then who gives a crap what they want. The important thing is to make sure their problems are not the U.S. government's problems. But if we unilaterally privatized everything they wouldn't be problems eventually anyways.

[OK_Cat]

felix rex, in oklahoma there is still a big problem with indian-hating.  but then you realize that the people who hate indians are the same people who hate "n-words, jews, queers, a-rabs, spics, chinks, etc"

i'd say that, in my opinion, the different tiers of hate in oklahoma are as follows:

tier 1 (most hate):

african americans
hispanics

tier 2 (still a lot of hate):

a-rabs
gays
democrats

tiers 3 (hate, but not as much assault):

native americans
jews
asians

[sys]

All of the Indian casinos around me are great. You would think you were in Vegas with good restaurants, bars, shops, high rise hotels, etc.  The tribal members are building custom homes on 2-3 acres all over their reservations. They have finally found a way to screw the white man (lots of Asians, too) out of their money. Good for them.

i once met an older woman who was the sole remaining member of her tribe with lands in laguna mountains.  she had the whole tribe's property to herself.  she just used to pasture her horses.

[sys]

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?"

efficient.  when you place restrictions on the use of the benefit, you decrease the value of it to the recipient, when you provide it an manner that requires the use of a manner of payment that is carries some stigma, you decrease the value.  basically the taxpayer is paying $1.00 to purchase $1.00 of benefit, but instead of passing it along with all of that value intact, they pass it along with in a form that makes it less valuable. like they buy $0.75 of benefit with their dollar instead of the full cash value of it.

the earned income tax credit is the most efficient benefit offered to the poor in the us.

[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?"

efficient.  when you place restrictions on the use of the benefit, you decrease the value of it to the recipient, when you provide it an manner that requires the use of a manner of payment that is carries some stigma, you decrease the value.  basically the taxpayer is paying $1.00 to purchase $1.00 of benefit, but instead of passing it along with all of that value intact, they pass it along with in a form that makes it less valuable. like they buy $0.75 of benefit with their dollar instead of the full cash value of it.

Ok, efficient.  I can agree with that.

But effective,  .

If it were effective it would serve to get people (back) on their feet, off food stamps, healthy and with jobs paying taxes.

[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.

To clarify, if they're sovereign then who gives a crap what they want. The important thing is to make sure their problems are not the U.S. government's problems. But if we unilaterally privatized everything they wouldn't be problems eventually anyways.

Sort of, but you are missing the point. The US Government treats them as a sovereign nation when it is convenient, but then goes out of their way to tell the natives what they can and cannot do with their land. It's bullshit that a Native American (a US Citizen) who owns land on a reservation cannot sell that land without getting permission from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and cannot sell that land to anybody who is not a member of the tribe, while I can sell land that I own in the US to a Canadian citizen if I so choose. Either the tribes are sovereign or they aren't. If they are sovereign, the US government should treat them as such and not get involved with their affairs. If they are not, which is better for everyone, then the whole Reservation idea should just be done away with the communal land should be divided amongst those currently living on the reservation, and they should be able to do with it what they please.

[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.

What's the criteria for "effective?"

efficient.  when you place restrictions on the use of the benefit, you decrease the value of it to the recipient, when you provide it an manner that requires the use of a manner of payment that is carries some stigma, you decrease the value.  basically the taxpayer is paying $1.00 to purchase $1.00 of benefit, but instead of passing it along with all of that value intact, they pass it along with in a form that makes it less valuable. like they buy $0.75 of benefit with their dollar instead of the full cash value of it.

Ok, efficient.  I can agree with that.

But effective,  .

If it were effective it would serve to get people (back) on their feet, off food stamps, healthy and with jobs paying taxes.

Over half of SNAP recipients are children and the elderly.

And 40% of recipients live in households with an income.

[Emo EMAW]

Okay?

[star seed 7]

those kids should find their own rough ridin' jobs and stop mooching off my tax dollars!!!   

[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.

What's the criteria for "effective?"

efficient.  when you place restrictions on the use of the benefit, you decrease the value of it to the recipient, when you provide it an manner that requires the use of a manner of payment that is carries some stigma, you decrease the value.  basically the taxpayer is paying $1.00 to purchase $1.00 of benefit, but instead of passing it along with all of that value intact, they pass it along with in a form that makes it less valuable. like they buy $0.75 of benefit with their dollar instead of the full cash value of it.

the earned income tax credit is the most efficient benefit offered to the poor in the us.

I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Over half of SNAP recipients are children and the elderly.

And 40% of recipients live in households with an income.

I'm guessing they don't hand out the benefits to the kids, right? And I'm guessing nobody can or would check to see how the kids' benefits are being spent, right? And anyway, I'm guessing the government doesn't care if those benefits are spent on really unhealthy, uneconomical crap, right?

So I'm wondering how any of these stats are relevant as to whether we should tighten regulations on how these benefits are spent?

Quick question: why does Michelle Obama's (laudable) healthy eating campaign not extend to food stamps?

[OK_Cat]

Over half of SNAP recipients are children and the elderly.

And 40% of recipients live in households with an income.

I'm guessing they don't hand out the benefits to the kids, right? And I'm guessing nobody can or would check to see how the kids' benefits are being spent, right? And anyway, I'm guessing the government doesn't care if those benefits are spent on really unhealthy, uneconomical crap, right?

So I'm wondering how any of these stats are relevant as to whether we should tighten regulations on how these benefits are spent?

Quick question: why does Michelle Obama's (laudable) healthy eating campaign not extend to food stamps?

why doesn't the government just hand out a big ass box of food to the poors every week, amiright

[sys]

I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?

doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.

[michigancat]

I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?

doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.

hmm

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=27517.msg821194#msg821194

[sys]

hmm

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=27517.msg821194#msg821194

that's not inefficient, that's a tragedy of the commons.  private benefit, public cost.  besides, i was explaining the behavior, not defending it.  filth doesn't bother me much.