FTFA: Wed and let wed
My teenage daughter cleverly spots the best slogan of the moment: "If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married."

What an original little snowflake you have there, Mr. Rip Van Winkle.

Julie Cochrane: "Brother, can you spare a dime?" Income.

Once I built a railroad,
made it run,
made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad,
now it's done.
Brother...
Can you spare a dime?

Good lord the Post is farking awful. fark You, The Post.

thurstonxhowell: I'm even more impressed that they believe the mere existence of fat people can eliminate hunger in everyone.

I saw a fat person once, therefore no one is hungry.

Sock Ruh Tease: Notwithstanding the rise of obesity, the Times sees an epidemic of hunger. A stroll on any street suggests that hunger is hiding under layers of fat.

I'm glad that the New York Post believes that fat people can't be hungry. Now I will go outside and observe the sun revolving around the earth.

Random, useless fact of the day: it isn't actually incorrect to say the sun revolves around the earth.

I'll let Stephen Hawking explain:

A famous example of different pictures of reality is the model introduced around AD 150 by Ptolemy (ca. 85-ca. 165) to describe the motion of celestial bodies. Ptolemy published his work in a thirteen-book treatise usually known under its Arabic title, Almagest. The Almagest begins by explaining reasons for thinking the earth is spherical, motionless, positioned at the center of the universe, and negligibly small in comparison to the distance of the heavens. Despite Aristarchus's heliocentric model, these beliefs had been held by most educated Greeks at least since the time of Aristotle, who believed for mystical reasons that the earth should be at the center of the universe. In Ptolemy's model the earth stood still at the center and the planets and stars moved around it in complicated orbits involving epicycles, like wheels on wheels.

This model seemed natural because we don't feel the earth under our feet moving. Later European learning was based on the Greek sources that had been passed down so that the ideas of Aristotle and Ptolemy were became the basis for much of Western thought. Ptolemy's model of the cosmos was adopted by the Catholic Church and held as official doctrine for fourteen hundred years. It was not until 1543 that an alternative model was put forth by Copernicus in his book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, published only in the year of his death (although he had worked on his theory for several decades)...

So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage to the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.

Why not give them cash instead of food-stamps anyways? If you want to boost the economy, give people cash. I have to assume Conservatives prefer when Government micro-manages the lives of people.

The idea of finger-printing poor people or forcing them to take drug tests is completely disgusting and retarded.

mrshowrules: The idea of finger-printing poor people or forcing them to take drug tests is completely disgusting and retarded.

It appeals to that good ol' Southern Christianity.

Judge and punish, and your rewards shall be in this world.

Citrate1007: As of a few years ago, in MN your home, your primary car, and any secondary vehicles, boats, RV's, ATVs, snomobiles are not considered assets. Have a $40K sports car that you could sell to make ends meet? No worries keep it and have some food stamps.

Devil's advocate here, it would seem an inefficient system to combat poverty that doesn't do anything until someone has already hit absolute bottom and requires the most help to get turned around.

There's a reason we put guard rails up near the road, and not out in the woods.

Chameleon: The only thing I took from that article was "holy crap, they were making people get fingerprinted in order to get food stamps??"

Yes because poor people are more dishonest and prone to crime than rich people apparently.

I'd love to run a social experiment (which would be itself illegal/unethical). It would involve placing 50 randomly selected poor people and 50 randomly selected very rich people on a desert island. Or any controlled environment where you could limit access to resources and food. At first I would ensure the rich people would be provided preferred access to food/resources but gradually shift the resources to the poor people and watch fun ensue. If I had to bet the rich people have such a strong sense of self-entitlement that would quickly become homicidal thieves in a heartbeat.

odinsposse: I think it's more accurate to fit it into the broader conservative belief that people can be punished into success. Can't find a job? We'll punish you with humiliating regulations until you get one. School not doing well? We'll punish you with budget cuts until you perform better. Go to jail? We'll punish you with terrible living conditions until you stop breaking the law. Foreign country that disagrees with us? We'll punish you with bombs until you think like us.

Not at all.

They don't want you to get better. They want you there to spit on so they feel better.

Why do you think the GOP base never runs out of people to hate?

The impoverished, gays, immigrants, scientists, educators, ethnic minorities, those engaging in premarital sex, etc. -- Every single time a conservative gets to judge and punish someone, they get off on it.

Their entire platform is, "Unify in stupidity to piss off liberals," and it works because they'll do anything to punish people they've judged, including voting to deteriorate their own quality of life.

qorkfiend: odinsposse: Lenny_da_Hog: mrshowrules: The idea of finger-printing poor people or forcing them to take drug tests is completely disgusting and retarded.

It appeals to that good ol' Southern Christianity.

Judge and punish, and your rewards shall be in this world.

I think it's more accurate to fit it into the broader conservative belief that people can be punished into success. Can't find a job? We'll punish you with humiliating regulations until you get one. School not doing well? We'll punish you with budget cuts until you perform better. Go to jail? We'll punish you with terrible living conditions until you stop breaking the law. Foreign country that disagrees with us? We'll punish you with bombs until you think like us.

None of these things are really effective or sprung from any kind of evidence it it just feels right to them to punish people until they do what you want.

The entire conservative mindset is that the only valid role of government is punishment.

^That^

Fingerprinting to obtain the card doesn't prevent fraud. So good for Cuomo far as that goes.

Some fraud happens after the card is issued, when recipients trade it to shady merchants for cash, cigarettes, whatever. Merchants have to be doing something blatantly fraudulent to get caught.

The other fraud comes from applicants lying about assets. On this issue, Cuomo is being a weasel...scaling back asset research and calling it "streamlining the application process" or "paperwork reduction".

And hell...the way the food stamp program is structured promotes obesity.

So either set up a way to ID benefits-card users at stores so that they are who they say they are, or...since we're so worried about obesity and all that...kill the "food stamp" program and replace it with a program that sets people up with healthy meals instead.

Good luck trying to trade a bunch of bananas for a pack of smokes.

Gulper Eel: Fingerprinting to obtain the card doesn't prevent fraud. So good for Cuomo far as that goes.

Some fraud happens after the card is issued, when recipients trade it to shady merchants for cash, cigarettes, whatever. Merchants have to be doing something blatantly fraudulent to get caught.

The other fraud comes from applicants lying about assets. On this issue, Cuomo is being a weasel...scaling back asset research and calling it "streamlining the application process" or "paperwork reduction".

And hell...the way the food stamp program is structured promotes obesity.

So either set up a way to ID benefits-card users at stores so that they are who they say they are, or...since we're so worried about obesity and all that...kill the "food stamp" program and replace it with a program that sets people up with healthy meals instead.

Good luck trying to trade a bunch of bananas for a pack of smokes.

I've never collected a penny of social assistance in my life. Not bragging - I have been very fortunate and I thank the gods for this fact. My mother was on social assistance for a couple of years when we were growing up. For her/us it was a life line that allowed her to retain a measure of personal dignity while putting her life back on track. She has since done very well for herself and god knows what would have happened to my sisters, brother and myself if that lifeline wasn't there for us when we needed it.

This is not about food/starvation. You can eat out of a dumpster and survive. It is always been about personal dignity in my mind and that is why it should be cash. If I ever found myself on food stamps, I would certainly commit fraud to get my life back on track. I would eat at shelters and get food from food banks and I would convert as much of the food stamps as possible to cash to use to get my life back on track. This isn't fraud IMHO. Wanting to get back on your feet and pay for yourself is what should be encouraged and cash is better for that.

Millennium: Helping people in need is good; enabling the abusive is not. Is it wrong to ask for a little rigor?

There *is* a little rigor. How much rigor should there be in a *food* program?

Right-wingers have shown they'll spend millions to find a single welfare fraud case to impale on a spike. Look at Florida and the stupid drug-testing law. It busted almost nobody, and the state now pays for drug testing for everyone.

They spent far, far more on policing than they saved by doing so. That's judgment/punishment-driven spending.

Millennium: Helping people in need is good; enabling the abusive is not. Is it wrong to ask for a little rigor?

This is beyond a little rigor obviously.

If Republicans were truly against big Government controlling their lives and stealing from the rich to give to the poor, they should opt for a much fairer social credit program.

1) eliminate all social assistance programs in the US (eliminate all Government Departments managing them as well

2) pay a fixed amount (let's say $800) a month adjusted for inflation to every single adult in the Unites States regardless of wealth, health or disabilities. Income is tax exempt for everyone.

3) payments can be managed by IRS (would require no screening, application or red-tape) other than filing a tax return and being a legal resident

1) extremely fair
2) eliminates a ridiculously huge number of Government positions
3) can be structured to be revenue neutral with simple adjustments to marginal tax rates

It would be called the "Passing Go" bill.

/seriously considered in Canada at various times (but not called that).

Sarsin: Gulper Eel: And hell...the way the food stamp program is structured promotes obesity.

I think that is more of a correlation than a cause. Low income people are less likely to be educated, and are just making bad food choices. I do agree that if you are poor, cheap food is most definitely not healthy. The way we give out subsidies ensures that a package of Zingers will be cheaper than apples.

Thus my proposal for a food program and not a food-stamp program.

Millennium: Does this sound like a reasonable summary, if a bit simplistic?

Actually, these days we mostly just wake up praying that Obama has made it through the night without caving in to the tea derps on something again.