Page 1 of 1
Well why not just give them money?
Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:00 pm
by rubato
'What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?'
The benefits of income supplements for the poor:
What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?, by Moises Velasquez-Manoff, Commentary, NY Times: ...in 1996, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina’s Great Smoky Mountains opened a casino, Jane Costello, an epidemiologist at Duke University Medical School, saw an opportunity. The tribe elected to distribute a proportion of the profits equally among its 8,000 members. Professor Costello wondered whether the extra money would change psychiatric outcomes among poor Cherokee families. ...
The poorest children tended to have the greatest risk of psychiatric disorders, including emotional and behavioral problems. But just four years after the supplements began, Professor Costello observed marked improvements among those who moved out of poverty. The frequency of behavioral problems declined by 40 percent, nearly reaching the risk of children who had never been poor. Already well-off Cherokee children, on the other hand, showed no improvement. ...
Minor crimes committed by Cherokee youth declined. On-time high school graduation rates improved. ... The earlier the supplements arrived in a child’s life, the better that child’s mental health in early adulthood. ...
Randall Akee, an economist at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a collaborator of Professor Costello’s, argues that the supplements actually save money in the long run. ... But contrary to the prevailing emphasis on interventions in infancy, Professor Akee’s analysis suggests that even help that comes later — at age 12, in this case — can pay for itself by early adulthood. ...
f giving poor families with children a little extra cash not only helps them, but also saves society money in the long run, then, says Professor Costello, withholding the help is something other than rational. ...
[There's quite a bit more in the article.]
http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... ipend.html
Full article. worth a read:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... blogs&_r=0
yrs,
rubato
Re: Well why not just give them money?
Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:05 pm
by Joe Guy
I believe that our welfare system isn't great but it is a good thing. Those who complain about people who live off the government very likely have not ever been in a place where they could use assistance. We don't hear about people who have temporarily been on public assistance and move on to successful jobs. Most people would rather talk about the small percentage of people who commit fraud.
Whenever I hear a discussion about people on welfare the people who speak the loudest are usually saying how those people are lazy and our government is encouraging them to remain that way.
I often hear people make up things about people on public assistance. Yesterday I was listening to talk radio and the subject was food stamps. Every person that I heard call in said they were upset that people who don't deserve food stamps are getting them.
One numbnut called in to complain and added, "Why doesn't our government hire people to determine whether or not people deserve to have food stamps? You know why? Because our government won't invest money to pay people to do it? If they did it would create jobs.....blah blah blah..."
I have to wonder how Mr numbnut thinks people get food stamps. The food stamp fairy? What made it worse is that after numbnut spoke other people agreed with him.
As often happens, people make things up and others accept it as truth because it supports their ignorant opinion. Eventually, thousands of people become outraged at something that isn't true.
the end
Re: Well why not just give them money?
Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:22 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
The federal government takes action against those who misuse the program.
In FY 2012, over 100 analysts and investigators reviewed over 15,000 stores and conducted nearly 4,500 undercover investigations. Close to 1,400 stores were permanently disqualified for trafficking and nearly 700 stores were sanctioned for other violations such as the sale of ineligible items. FNS also works with State law enforcement authorities to provide them with SNAP benefits that are used in sting operations, supporting anti-trafficking actions at the local level. USDA’s Office of the Inspector General also conducts extensive criminal investigations – many resulting from FNS administrative oversight findings and referrals – to prosecute traffickers. In FY 2012, OIG SNAP investigations resulted in 342 convictions, including a number of multi-year prison terms for the most serious offenses, and approximately $57.7 million in monetary results. In FY 2012, OIG devoted more than 50 percent of its investigative resources to prevent SNAP fraud, waste and abuse.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fraud/what-snap-fraud
Well Joe, the USFDA 'pines that 2100 stores out of 15,000 reviewed (some 14% is that?) were involved in some form of food stamp misuse. Elswhere you will see they say that the cost of fraud has decreased from 4c on the dollar to only 1c on the dollar (last figure available).
Based on the most comprehensive current estimate, trafficking diverted an estimated $330 million annually from SNAP benefits – or about one cent of each SNAP
dollar – between 2006 and 2008.
That's commendable. Obviously Mr. N. Nuts thinks that nothing is being done when something definitely is. But he's also correct that quite a big lump of money goes a wandering. It is, says the FDA, "not a cost to Government". By that they mean they spent the money already and if it gets misappropriated it's no skin off their nose.
That's an odd statement considering how much effort they toss into fighting this fraud - if it truly was not cost at all, why bother? Investigating does cost a lot more than doing nothing (M. Numb Nuts) The biggest problem of course is that people sell their stamps for cash so they can buy non-authorized things - like beer and cigarettes - which requires fraudulent retailers and a very organised criminal activity.
So perhaps only one Mr N Nuts' testicles is feeling no pain?
Meade
Re: Well why not just give them money?
Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:23 pm
by Joe Guy
MajGenl.Meade wrote:
So perhaps only one Mr N Nuts' testicles is feeling no pain?
No. Mr Numbnuts' nuts are completely numbulated.
He asked why the government doesn't hire people to determine whether or not people are eligible for SNAP and claims to know why. He said the government won't invest the money. Obviously, our government does hire people for that purpose otherwise there would be no way to get benefits. The government also has welfare fraud investigators.