Okay... Why would we...

[uscitizen]

I'd like to see the transcript of the ad, rather than your recollection of it.

Second, if someone qualifies they should get it. I highly doubt the state is encouraging people who don't qualify, to "come on down" and get it.

Third, everybody knows the Army and National Guard exist. Do you have a problem with advertisements on TV and Radio for them?

Good point they run ads stating benefits of up to 48K or so in benefits....
that is our tax money being spent there as well. And currently for a piss poor reason. Not always of course.

Lets cry about the medicare ads for scooter chairs or diabetes supplies for no cost, etc...

But then those are ads by private industry making a profit, excuse me.

 

[Cypress]

The point Darla is this...

Do you honestly believe that anyone doesn't know welfare exists?

The answer is they would have to be complete idiots to not know welfare exists, therefore it is a complete waste of money to advertise its existence. That money would be better spent on those that need it rather than wasting it on advertising.

Everyone knows the US Army exists. Yet, there's commercials for it on TV and radio.

And, in the real life of poor people and people down on their luck, things aren't always as simple and cut and dried as those of us on message boards fortunate enough to be educated and comfortable.

There is aid available to these people, that they may be sort of aware of, but might not use, or might not be on their radar screen, if outreach is not provided

 

[Damocles]

Rent, heat, a telephone... you know, real luxuries.

Or, if as it is said in the ad that they 'don't really NEED the money' can we assume that rent, heat, food is already paid for. You know the 'luxuries' as you sarcastically pretend that a suggestion of 'need' would suggest that such items might be going wanting. A suggestion of 'not need' makes no such implication.

You pretend to ignore the message of the commercial which is, "Even if you don't need it like me, you can still get it and it is 'nice'".

It is simply wealth redistribution, given to those who 'don't need it'.

So, purposefully missing my point about her 'not needing the 'help' but finding it 'nice' when things are 'tighter', doesn't change that if we are giving away Welfare to those who admit to not needing it, then we are simply giving away money to redistribute wealth.

 

[Cancel7]

Or, if as it is said in the ad that they 'don't really NEED the money' can we assume that rent, heat, food is already paid for. You know the 'luxuries' as you sarcastically pretend that a suggestion of 'need' would suggest that such items might be going wanting. A suggestion of 'not need' makes no such implication.

You pretend to ignore the message of the commercial which is, "Even if you don't need it like me, you can still get it and it is 'nice'".

It is simply wealth redistribution, given to those who 'don't need it'.

So, purposefully missing my point about her 'not needing the 'help' but finding it 'nice' when things are 'tighter', doesn't change that if we are giving away Welfare to those who admit to not needing it, then we are simply giving away money to redistribute wealth.

She said "even if you don't need it like me"? Exactly that? Or is this what you perceive the message to be?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

damo... do you recall the station you heard it on?

 

[Cypress]

Or, if as it is said in the ad that they 'don't really NEED the money' can we assume that rent, heat, food is already paid for. You know the 'luxuries' as you sarcastically pretend that a suggestion of 'need' would suggest that such items might be going wanting. A suggestion of 'not need' makes no such implication.

You pretend to ignore the message of the commercial which is, "Even if you don't need it like me, you can still get it and it is 'nice'".

It is simply wealth redistribution, given to those who 'don't need it'.

It is simply wealth redistribution, given to those who 'don't need it'.


I can almost see you in a silk top hat, a monacle, and a cane...like that billionaire guy in the Monopoly board game.

I assure you that food stamps aren't given away as door prizes, or to people who don't need it.

A while ago I posted a GAO study on food stamp fraud. And the levels of fraud were very, very low. And getting lower, due to oversight and enforcment.

I'm quite sure the level of fraud in the food stamp program, is far below the penatagon's fraud, or the fraud of contractors in iraq.

 

[Damocles]

She said "even if you don't need it like me"? Exactly that? Or is this what you perceive the message to be?

She says, "I don't really need it, but things are 'tight', and it is 'nice' during times like these when things are 'tighter'."

 

[Damocles]

It is simply wealth redistribution, given to those who 'don't need it'.


I can almost see you in a silk top hat, a monacle, and a cane...like that billionaire guy in the Monopoly board game.

I assure you that food stamps aren't given away as door prizes, or to people who don't need it.

A while ago I posted a GAO study on food stamp fraud. And the levels of fraud were very, very low. And getting lower, due to oversight and enforcment.

I'm quite sure the level of fraud in the food stamp program, is far below the penatagon's fraud, or the fraud of contractors in iraq.

Except the ad specifically states, "I don't need it" and then talks about how nice it is. Your assumption is retarded when I have posted this several times.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Or, if as it is said in the ad that they 'don't really NEED the money' can we assume that rent, heat, food is already paid for. You know the 'luxuries' as you sarcastically pretend that a suggestion of 'need' would suggest that such items might be going wanting. A suggestion of 'not need' makes no such implication.

You pretend to ignore the message of the commercial which is, "Even if you don't need it like me, you can still get it and it is 'nice'".

It is simply wealth redistribution, given to those who 'don't need it'.

So, purposefully missing my point about her 'not needing the 'help' but finding it 'nice' when things are 'tighter', doesn't change that if we are giving away Welfare to those who admit to not needing it, then we are simply giving away money to redistribute wealth.

What I love is the ability of people like US to turn this into a Bush bashing thread. It is a complete waste of money, but hey, lets find a way to blame what Colorado does on Bush. Please.... we get it... you hate Bush.

 

[Cancel7]

She says, "I don't really need it, but things are 'tight', and it is 'nice' during times like these when things are 'tighter'."

Well, the I don't really need it part, is not something I would have put in, but I take the general message differently. I take it to be, you don't have to be a bum like you've heard, to use food stamps. YOu can use them if you are having a tough time making ends meet.

 

[Damocles]

Well, the I don't really need it part, is not something I would have put in, but I take the general message differently. I take it to be, you don't have to be a bum like you've heard, to use food stamps. YOu can use them if you are having a tough time making ends meet.

I take it to mean, if you don't need it, we'll give it to you anyway.

I also note how it never calls it what it is. Welfare. It isn't 'help' when they admit to not 'needing'.

 

[Cypress]

Damo, here's the reason the state is doing outreach:

Food stamps going unused in Colorado- Red tape, shame, lengthy forms may be reason

By Betsy Lehndorff, Rocky Mountain News
June 5, 2007

Only 56 percent of Coloradans eligible for federal food stamps took part in the federal program in 2004, the most recent year available, an anti-hunger advocacy group said Monday.

In its annual State of the States report, the Washington D.C.- based Food Research and Action Center said participation in summer school lunch programs drop- ped 30 percent in the past decade.

Several factors contribute to the relatively low rates, including red tape, lengthy forms and shame, experts say.

"I think there is a stigma attached," said Tina Podolak, executive director of the Colorado Anti- Hunger Network, which released the report locally. "How do people feel when they go into the food stamp office? Are they treated with respect? Those are issues that impact the reasons why people don't apply."

Colorado ranked 37th out of 50 states in food stamp participation. Missouri was first, with 84 percent of those eligible requesting aid.


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5571280,00.html

 

[Cancel7]

I take it to mean, if you don't need it, we'll give it to you anyway.

I also note how it never calls it what it is. Welfare. It isn't 'help' when they admit to not 'needing'.

There is a huge stigma attached to the word "welfare". that is why I think this ad might be more directed at that stigma. It's ok to be "tight" it doesn't make you "poor" or a "loser". Seriously, I can see that.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, here's the reason the state is doing outreach:

LOL. You know what else 'may' be the reason. Not as many people are in need.

 

[Cancel7]

Damo, here's the reason the state is doing outreach:

I swear I didn't read this before I made my post.

I am extremely perceptive about human motivation. Besides being cute and special as my mom says.

 

[Cypress]

Except the ad specifically states, "I don't need it" and then talks about how nice it is. Your assumption is retarded when I have posted this several times.

Except the ad specifically states, "I don't need it" and then talks about how nice it is.


I seriously doubt this is what the ad says.

 

[Cancel7]

LOL. You know what else 'may' be the reason. Not as many people are in need.

No, if you put that ad together with this report, it tells you why the state made the ad, whether you agree with what they did or not. They made it to reduce the stigma of welfare. To attempt to.

 

[Damocles]

There is a huge stigma attached to the word "welfare". that is why I think this ad might be more directed at that stigma. It's ok to be "tight" it doesn't make you "poor" or a "loser". Seriously, I can see that.

I will say it one last time. There is nothing more clearly a message of wealth redistribution and of spending money wastefully than one of, "If you don't really NEED it, we'll give it to you anyway."

It's supposed to be for those in need, not just a way to save you a buck or two when you can already make ends meet. In other words, when it isn't NEEDED.

 

[Cypress]

I swear I didn't read this before I made my post.

I am extremely perceptive about human motivation. Besides being cute and special as my mom says.

this is what you and I suspected. Colorado has an atrocious participation rate. People who are eligible aren't getting it...for a variety of reasons, which are all valid: read tape, stigma, etc

 

[Damocles]

I also prefer that people be a bit ashamed of accepting welfare. We shouldn't promote it as anything more than a temporary solution for those in need.