Trump's Budget Will Eliminate Food Stamps!!!!!!!

[Stephen]

Not to go all bleeding heart on you, but there are people (mentally disabled for example), that even if they have a menial job, it's not really enough to live on.

I'm all for the able bodied/able minded to get off their ass and stop taking handouts, but there are exceptions.

Agreed, I’m also very cool with gov assistance if you are working but can’t make it on your own (partial disability, single mom, worst run of luck ever etc)..

[kingjason]

Not to go all bleeding heart on you, but there are people (mentally disabled for example), that even if they have a menial job, it's not really enough to live on.

I'm all for the able bodied/able minded to get off their ass and stop taking handouts, but there are exceptions.

Agreed, I’m also very cool with gov assistance if you are working but can’t make it on your own (partial disability, single mom, worst run of luck ever etc)..

I have never met anyone that had any problem with legit cases of needing government assistance. Now that being said, the years I worked at a another agency, the abuse you would see was ridiculous. Hearing young girls openly discuss having more kids to double/ triple, quadruple their assistance. Fifty percent of the dopers/burglers that had been in jail and were losing their marbles from over use were on some kind of disabilty for PTSD, ADHD, Bi polar. The new catch phrase for not getting your ass beat enough growing up. All sorts of able bodied working people coming into the courts claiming to be on disability. Fix all of that shit and I got no problem helping the ones that really need it. They should have to rotate doctors and have that shit monitored a little better. Crazy.

Also goes into my theory of changing the criminal history system. I was talking to a guy that use to be a big meth user but has gotten straight. He talked about the people getting out of jail and not being able to do anything due to a drug charge. He is doing really well but liked my plan a lot as he tries to help others now. My idea is you get popped for a misdemeanor drug charge, go to jail, do your probation, get straight, that shit falls off in three years, gone, non searchable. Felony drugs, 5 years or three, hell it's mostly the same. Maybe hit the dealers of the hard drugs a little harder as that stuff destroys people. Bull shit shoplifting when you are say under 21, 3 years. I mean you keep stealing that might be something an employer needs to know. Some of that stuff is just a mindless cycle. Popped for dope, can't get a job, turn to a life of crime with petty theft, burglary, whatever.

Now, for all those people that are staying out of jail, we can be harder on the worst crimes and keep them locked up longer. Murder, agg assault, robbery, rape, etc . I am not going to debate the system and prisons for profit as not once have I ever heard some one say, hey, we should put more people in jail to shore up revenues. Could that be a issue with the higher ups in the world, who knows. I have just never seen it or heard anyone mention it.

[Gasser64]

And how much of all this could be solved if any and all charities were forced to have distributed 95% of the money they raised, by the end of the year? To the cause they claim to support. If not, it all gets automatically distributed back to the donors in the correct amounts. And the charity gets that last 5% taken away to pay fines.

You can't look to the government to help any group in need. Their track record prohibits it.

[LANTIRN]

And how much of all this could be solved if any and all charities were forced to have distributed 95% of the money they raised, by the end of the year? To the cause they claim to support. If not, it all gets automatically distributed back to the donors in the correct amounts. And the charity gets that last 5% taken away to pay fines.

You can't look to the government to help any group in need. Their track record prohibits it.

Yet your solution to all this is the government forcing charities to distribute all their money every year.

[Gasser64]

Yet your solution to all this is the government forcing charities to distribute all their money every year.

Absolutely. I'd be willing to let them keep whatever they could show was reasonable expenses. Cruises to the bahamas aren't reasonable, you should dig into what a racket the goodly portion of charities really are. Its either that or they need to start paying taxes like the rest of us.

Next, there doesn't necessarily have to be any solution. Looking to government for "solutions" to shit like this is what got us in this mess. Freedom is also about the freedom to be a complete fuck up and ruin your life, if you so choose. As for the truly disabled, that number is microscopic in comparison to the number of moochers that game the system, and by-choice fuck ups who want us to pay for their retarded life decisions. So the answer from me, is no. Tough shit.

[svauto-erotic855]

Yet your solution to all this is the government forcing charities to distribute all their money every year.

Most charities are a hustle. To qualify as a charity I believe that you only have to pay out 8 percent of your yearly donations.

There is big money to be made in non-profits.

[DON SVO]

I’ve said before, the fix for any of these charities/non-profits/foundations is a regulation requiring that any flyer/banner/ad/etc, essentially anything that has their name/logo, must include the previous fiscal year’s percentage of donation. If it’s nasty, they have to wear that badge of dishonor until the next fiscal year. Or they stop advertising or putting their name out there at all.

If Average Joe knew how little is actually donated it might make a lot of people stop and think.

[Forever_frost]

I’ve said before, the fix for any of these charities/non-profits/foundations is a regulation requiring that any flyer/banner/ad/etc, essentially anything that has their name/logo, must include the previous fiscal year’s percentage of donation. If it’s nasty, they have to wear that badge of dishonor until the next fiscal year. Or they stop advertising or putting their name out there at all.

If Average Joe knew how little is actually donated it might make a lot of people stop and think.

In numbers at least as large as their name

[LANTIRN]

Absolutely. I'd be willing to let them keep whatever they could show was reasonable expenses. Cruises to the bahamas aren't reasonable, you should dig into what a racket the goodly portion of charities really are. Its either that or they need to start paying taxes like the rest of us.

Next, there doesn't necessarily have to be any solution. Looking to government for "solutions" to shit like this is what got us in this mess. Freedom is also about the freedom to be a complete fuck up and ruin your life, if you so choose. As for the truly disabled, that number is microscopic in comparison to the number of moochers that game the system, and by-choice fuck ups who want us to pay for their retarded life decisions. So the answer from me, is no. Tough shit.

I think you are missing my point. I agree about charities being a scam (most of them, anyway). My point was you say you cant trust the government to fix things or shouldn't look to the government for solutions, but then the fix is government regulation on what charities should do.

[Gasser64]

I think you are missing my point. I agree about charities being a scam (most of them, anyway). My point was you say you cant trust the government to fix things or shouldn't look to the government for solutions, but then the fix is government regulation on what charities should do.

I was thinking about that as I typed it lol. But we do have lots of laws that I think nobody would disagree with. Or at least no sane person. Scams are not looked upon kindly, and charities are largely scams. We do need the government for some things, just not most things. Making charities act like they'd have you believe that they act, at least moves the money out of the hands of government where it is now. (if we also killed the social programs in this hypothetical scenario)

Which still may not be a solution to anything, or fix any problem. Dunno, maybe the charities would never have enough money to "take care" of the disabled. But at least they wouldn't be allowed to be scam artists and liars that just keep the fucking money. The scumbags.

I go back and forth between whether we should ever even attempt to help the disabled, (whether mentally or otherwise) or not. Unless their family or someone close to them can afford to pay. It seems like a lose/lose situation to try. Unless of course, you only ever involve charity. Which at this point is a scam.

(vets excluded since government is what put them in the situation to begin with)

[GeorgeG.]

Most charities are a hustle. To qualify as a charity I believe that you only have to pay out 8 percent of your yearly donations.

There is big money to be made in non-profits.

I agree. The Wounded Warrior Project is a good example. I've read countless times where they do not help veterans as much as they claim to.

[svauto-erotic855]

^^^^^ The Clinton Foundation is another one that comes to mind.

[8mpg]

Only problem is, Im sure the government will overpay for everything. They are just as bad as spending money as the people on food stamps. This will bring more nonsense government contracts pay $10 for $1 worth of product and only qualified contractors per the regulations will be able to bid...they will pick the highest lobbied company etc...

[Chas_svo]

Actually that is the biggest problem in DC - lobbyists. They need to be the first in the nooses.

[Gasser64]

So we arrive back at ending campaign contributions, once again. To achieve that would be to tear out the problem at the root.