comment
stringlengths 1
9.9k
| context
listlengths 0
835
|
|---|---|
>
This is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents"
] |
>
I've heard this one before...
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …"
] |
>
Trump declassified them
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before..."
] |
>
I get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs.
Trump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them"
] |
>
So I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry."
] |
>
AwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President."
] |
>
Lock him up boys.
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg"
] |
>
Alright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys."
] |
>
Don’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times."
] |
>
"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS..."
- Oprah probably
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??"
] |
>
I am only interested in two things:
I hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.
Was Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably"
] |
>
Ok garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?"
] |
>
How will MTG spin this one?
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024."
] |
>
I have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?"
] |
>
There needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on"
] |
>
Caught white-handed.
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones."
] |
>
Now they are just fucking with us right?
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed."
] |
>
Let’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…
he is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?"
] |
>
Can I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document.
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years."
] |
>
Someone please tell me what to think. Are we ok with this or not? It's hard to keep track :(
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.",
">\n\nCan I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document."
] |
>
Time to check Obama’s house. Biden stole him while he was his vice president. Pence was Trumps. This might’ve been going on for a long time. Let’s check the Clintons and the Bushs as well.
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.",
">\n\nCan I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document.",
">\n\nSomeone please tell me what to think. Are we ok with this or not? It's hard to keep track :("
] |
>
“Is this treason?” —Faux Nooz host and Trump sycophant María Batshitaromo
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.",
">\n\nCan I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document.",
">\n\nSomeone please tell me what to think. Are we ok with this or not? It's hard to keep track :(",
">\n\nTime to check Obama’s house. Biden stole him while he was his vice president. Pence was Trumps. This might’ve been going on for a long time. Let’s check the Clintons and the Bushs as well."
] |
>
At this point it might be easier to list the people who DON’T have classified material at their homes.
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.",
">\n\nCan I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document.",
">\n\nSomeone please tell me what to think. Are we ok with this or not? It's hard to keep track :(",
">\n\nTime to check Obama’s house. Biden stole him while he was his vice president. Pence was Trumps. This might’ve been going on for a long time. Let’s check the Clintons and the Bushs as well.",
">\n\n“Is this treason?” —Faux Nooz host and Trump sycophant María Batshitaromo"
] |
>
Holy shit, this is just getting absurd.
Also, it would be great if we could stop reporting on this when everyone involved is actually following the correct process and turning them over right away. This shouldn't have been news.
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.",
">\n\nCan I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document.",
">\n\nSomeone please tell me what to think. Are we ok with this or not? It's hard to keep track :(",
">\n\nTime to check Obama’s house. Biden stole him while he was his vice president. Pence was Trumps. This might’ve been going on for a long time. Let’s check the Clintons and the Bushs as well.",
">\n\n“Is this treason?” —Faux Nooz host and Trump sycophant María Batshitaromo",
">\n\nAt this point it might be easier to list the people who DON’T have classified material at their homes."
] |
>
For fucks sake
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.",
">\n\nCan I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document.",
">\n\nSomeone please tell me what to think. Are we ok with this or not? It's hard to keep track :(",
">\n\nTime to check Obama’s house. Biden stole him while he was his vice president. Pence was Trumps. This might’ve been going on for a long time. Let’s check the Clintons and the Bushs as well.",
">\n\n“Is this treason?” —Faux Nooz host and Trump sycophant María Batshitaromo",
">\n\nAt this point it might be easier to list the people who DON’T have classified material at their homes.",
">\n\nHoly shit, this is just getting absurd.\nAlso, it would be great if we could stop reporting on this when everyone involved is actually following the correct process and turning them over right away. This shouldn't have been news."
] |
>
I believe it’s a very common thing for President and Vice President too accidentally take both classified and unclassified documents with them when they leave office cause when you are done you and your staff take everything so the new administration can take over quickly.
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.",
">\n\nCan I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document.",
">\n\nSomeone please tell me what to think. Are we ok with this or not? It's hard to keep track :(",
">\n\nTime to check Obama’s house. Biden stole him while he was his vice president. Pence was Trumps. This might’ve been going on for a long time. Let’s check the Clintons and the Bushs as well.",
">\n\n“Is this treason?” —Faux Nooz host and Trump sycophant María Batshitaromo",
">\n\nAt this point it might be easier to list the people who DON’T have classified material at their homes.",
">\n\nHoly shit, this is just getting absurd.\nAlso, it would be great if we could stop reporting on this when everyone involved is actually following the correct process and turning them over right away. This shouldn't have been news.",
">\n\nFor fucks sake"
] |
>
Homeboy lookin like that potato on oddly terrifying
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.",
">\n\nCan I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document.",
">\n\nSomeone please tell me what to think. Are we ok with this or not? It's hard to keep track :(",
">\n\nTime to check Obama’s house. Biden stole him while he was his vice president. Pence was Trumps. This might’ve been going on for a long time. Let’s check the Clintons and the Bushs as well.",
">\n\n“Is this treason?” —Faux Nooz host and Trump sycophant María Batshitaromo",
">\n\nAt this point it might be easier to list the people who DON’T have classified material at their homes.",
">\n\nHoly shit, this is just getting absurd.\nAlso, it would be great if we could stop reporting on this when everyone involved is actually following the correct process and turning them over right away. This shouldn't have been news.",
">\n\nFor fucks sake",
">\n\nI believe it’s a very common thing for President and Vice President too accidentally take both classified and unclassified documents with them when they leave office cause when you are done you and your staff take everything so the new administration can take over quickly."
] |
>
New rule.
If documents are found you need to give up your public function.
Let’s see what remains 😁
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.",
">\n\nCan I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document.",
">\n\nSomeone please tell me what to think. Are we ok with this or not? It's hard to keep track :(",
">\n\nTime to check Obama’s house. Biden stole him while he was his vice president. Pence was Trumps. This might’ve been going on for a long time. Let’s check the Clintons and the Bushs as well.",
">\n\n“Is this treason?” —Faux Nooz host and Trump sycophant María Batshitaromo",
">\n\nAt this point it might be easier to list the people who DON’T have classified material at their homes.",
">\n\nHoly shit, this is just getting absurd.\nAlso, it would be great if we could stop reporting on this when everyone involved is actually following the correct process and turning them over right away. This shouldn't have been news.",
">\n\nFor fucks sake",
">\n\nI believe it’s a very common thing for President and Vice President too accidentally take both classified and unclassified documents with them when they leave office cause when you are done you and your staff take everything so the new administration can take over quickly.",
">\n\nHomeboy lookin like that potato on oddly terrifying"
] |
>
How convenient. Had to have something to cover up the Biden discovery… now what? Go raid Nancy’s and Kamala’s house and every member of Congress.
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.",
">\n\nCan I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document.",
">\n\nSomeone please tell me what to think. Are we ok with this or not? It's hard to keep track :(",
">\n\nTime to check Obama’s house. Biden stole him while he was his vice president. Pence was Trumps. This might’ve been going on for a long time. Let’s check the Clintons and the Bushs as well.",
">\n\n“Is this treason?” —Faux Nooz host and Trump sycophant María Batshitaromo",
">\n\nAt this point it might be easier to list the people who DON’T have classified material at their homes.",
">\n\nHoly shit, this is just getting absurd.\nAlso, it would be great if we could stop reporting on this when everyone involved is actually following the correct process and turning them over right away. This shouldn't have been news.",
">\n\nFor fucks sake",
">\n\nI believe it’s a very common thing for President and Vice President too accidentally take both classified and unclassified documents with them when they leave office cause when you are done you and your staff take everything so the new administration can take over quickly.",
">\n\nHomeboy lookin like that potato on oddly terrifying",
">\n\nNew rule.\nIf documents are found you need to give up your public function.\nLet’s see what remains 😁"
] |
>
How convenient, we are just gonna forget about Trump? Lmao
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.",
">\n\nCan I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document.",
">\n\nSomeone please tell me what to think. Are we ok with this or not? It's hard to keep track :(",
">\n\nTime to check Obama’s house. Biden stole him while he was his vice president. Pence was Trumps. This might’ve been going on for a long time. Let’s check the Clintons and the Bushs as well.",
">\n\n“Is this treason?” —Faux Nooz host and Trump sycophant María Batshitaromo",
">\n\nAt this point it might be easier to list the people who DON’T have classified material at their homes.",
">\n\nHoly shit, this is just getting absurd.\nAlso, it would be great if we could stop reporting on this when everyone involved is actually following the correct process and turning them over right away. This shouldn't have been news.",
">\n\nFor fucks sake",
">\n\nI believe it’s a very common thing for President and Vice President too accidentally take both classified and unclassified documents with them when they leave office cause when you are done you and your staff take everything so the new administration can take over quickly.",
">\n\nHomeboy lookin like that potato on oddly terrifying",
">\n\nNew rule.\nIf documents are found you need to give up your public function.\nLet’s see what remains 😁",
">\n\nHow convenient. Had to have something to cover up the Biden discovery… now what? Go raid Nancy’s and Kamala’s house and every member of Congress."
] |
>
Nahhh. It started with Trump but guess what. EVERYONE IS DOING IT. Now what
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.",
">\n\nCan I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document.",
">\n\nSomeone please tell me what to think. Are we ok with this or not? It's hard to keep track :(",
">\n\nTime to check Obama’s house. Biden stole him while he was his vice president. Pence was Trumps. This might’ve been going on for a long time. Let’s check the Clintons and the Bushs as well.",
">\n\n“Is this treason?” —Faux Nooz host and Trump sycophant María Batshitaromo",
">\n\nAt this point it might be easier to list the people who DON’T have classified material at their homes.",
">\n\nHoly shit, this is just getting absurd.\nAlso, it would be great if we could stop reporting on this when everyone involved is actually following the correct process and turning them over right away. This shouldn't have been news.",
">\n\nFor fucks sake",
">\n\nI believe it’s a very common thing for President and Vice President too accidentally take both classified and unclassified documents with them when they leave office cause when you are done you and your staff take everything so the new administration can take over quickly.",
">\n\nHomeboy lookin like that potato on oddly terrifying",
">\n\nNew rule.\nIf documents are found you need to give up your public function.\nLet’s see what remains 😁",
">\n\nHow convenient. Had to have something to cover up the Biden discovery… now what? Go raid Nancy’s and Kamala’s house and every member of Congress.",
">\n\nHow convenient, we are just gonna forget about Trump? Lmao"
] |
>
Not everyone is hiding documents, claiming declassified, and having lawyers tell NA and DoJ there are no other documents. Not everyone had to be raided to retrieve 300+ documents.
Everyone lately has had a few documents that were handed over without the need to raid anyone.
Totally the same. Uh-huh.
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.",
">\n\nCan I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document.",
">\n\nSomeone please tell me what to think. Are we ok with this or not? It's hard to keep track :(",
">\n\nTime to check Obama’s house. Biden stole him while he was his vice president. Pence was Trumps. This might’ve been going on for a long time. Let’s check the Clintons and the Bushs as well.",
">\n\n“Is this treason?” —Faux Nooz host and Trump sycophant María Batshitaromo",
">\n\nAt this point it might be easier to list the people who DON’T have classified material at their homes.",
">\n\nHoly shit, this is just getting absurd.\nAlso, it would be great if we could stop reporting on this when everyone involved is actually following the correct process and turning them over right away. This shouldn't have been news.",
">\n\nFor fucks sake",
">\n\nI believe it’s a very common thing for President and Vice President too accidentally take both classified and unclassified documents with them when they leave office cause when you are done you and your staff take everything so the new administration can take over quickly.",
">\n\nHomeboy lookin like that potato on oddly terrifying",
">\n\nNew rule.\nIf documents are found you need to give up your public function.\nLet’s see what remains 😁",
">\n\nHow convenient. Had to have something to cover up the Biden discovery… now what? Go raid Nancy’s and Kamala’s house and every member of Congress.",
">\n\nHow convenient, we are just gonna forget about Trump? Lmao",
">\n\nNahhh. It started with Trump but guess what. EVERYONE IS DOING IT. Now what"
] |
>
I work for the FBI. No one invaded or seized anything from Mar A Lago or Pence's place
So somebody invaded a president's home and then purported its contents
I'm agent 474, Kyle, third officer of the FBI. Call me and ask about our invasions.
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.",
">\n\nCan I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document.",
">\n\nSomeone please tell me what to think. Are we ok with this or not? It's hard to keep track :(",
">\n\nTime to check Obama’s house. Biden stole him while he was his vice president. Pence was Trumps. This might’ve been going on for a long time. Let’s check the Clintons and the Bushs as well.",
">\n\n“Is this treason?” —Faux Nooz host and Trump sycophant María Batshitaromo",
">\n\nAt this point it might be easier to list the people who DON’T have classified material at their homes.",
">\n\nHoly shit, this is just getting absurd.\nAlso, it would be great if we could stop reporting on this when everyone involved is actually following the correct process and turning them over right away. This shouldn't have been news.",
">\n\nFor fucks sake",
">\n\nI believe it’s a very common thing for President and Vice President too accidentally take both classified and unclassified documents with them when they leave office cause when you are done you and your staff take everything so the new administration can take over quickly.",
">\n\nHomeboy lookin like that potato on oddly terrifying",
">\n\nNew rule.\nIf documents are found you need to give up your public function.\nLet’s see what remains 😁",
">\n\nHow convenient. Had to have something to cover up the Biden discovery… now what? Go raid Nancy’s and Kamala’s house and every member of Congress.",
">\n\nHow convenient, we are just gonna forget about Trump? Lmao",
">\n\nNahhh. It started with Trump but guess what. EVERYONE IS DOING IT. Now what",
">\n\nNot everyone is hiding documents, claiming declassified, and having lawyers tell NA and DoJ there are no other documents. Not everyone had to be raided to retrieve 300+ documents.\nEveryone lately has had a few documents that were handed over without the need to raid anyone.\nTotally the same. Uh-huh."
] |
>
These guys are fucking idiots. Don’t they know how to learn from other peoples mistakes? Remember that month long thing that happened with trump? Do something with your fucking documents! Jeez
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.",
">\n\nCan I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document.",
">\n\nSomeone please tell me what to think. Are we ok with this or not? It's hard to keep track :(",
">\n\nTime to check Obama’s house. Biden stole him while he was his vice president. Pence was Trumps. This might’ve been going on for a long time. Let’s check the Clintons and the Bushs as well.",
">\n\n“Is this treason?” —Faux Nooz host and Trump sycophant María Batshitaromo",
">\n\nAt this point it might be easier to list the people who DON’T have classified material at their homes.",
">\n\nHoly shit, this is just getting absurd.\nAlso, it would be great if we could stop reporting on this when everyone involved is actually following the correct process and turning them over right away. This shouldn't have been news.",
">\n\nFor fucks sake",
">\n\nI believe it’s a very common thing for President and Vice President too accidentally take both classified and unclassified documents with them when they leave office cause when you are done you and your staff take everything so the new administration can take over quickly.",
">\n\nHomeboy lookin like that potato on oddly terrifying",
">\n\nNew rule.\nIf documents are found you need to give up your public function.\nLet’s see what remains 😁",
">\n\nHow convenient. Had to have something to cover up the Biden discovery… now what? Go raid Nancy’s and Kamala’s house and every member of Congress.",
">\n\nHow convenient, we are just gonna forget about Trump? Lmao",
">\n\nNahhh. It started with Trump but guess what. EVERYONE IS DOING IT. Now what",
">\n\nNot everyone is hiding documents, claiming declassified, and having lawyers tell NA and DoJ there are no other documents. Not everyone had to be raided to retrieve 300+ documents.\nEveryone lately has had a few documents that were handed over without the need to raid anyone.\nTotally the same. Uh-huh.",
">\n\nI work for the FBI. No one invaded or seized anything from Mar A Lago or Pence's place\nSo somebody invaded a president's home and then purported its contents\nI'm agent 474, Kyle, third officer of the FBI. Call me and ask about our invasions."
] |
>
|
[
"I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it.",
">\n\nAnd who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. \nElected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct.",
">\n\n100% assume they don't do the training. Too \"busy\". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences.",
">\n\nAt the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.\nSure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.\nDont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions",
">\n\nThat's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom.",
">\n\nDuring the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion. \n“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”\n― Mark Twain",
">\n\nSupporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews.",
">\n\nIt wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.\nThe thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.\nThe only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.\nPersonally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start.",
">\n\nThe American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon.",
">\n\nOr if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.\nFrom your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982.",
">\n\nThis like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. \nTrump on the other hand……..",
">\n\nThey are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal..",
">\n\nAgree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political.",
">\n\nDo you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home?",
">\n\nAnd the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary.",
">\n\nLike when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself?",
">\n\nI'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?\nFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong.",
">\n\nBecause that is the difference here. Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law.",
">\n\nTrump broke a second law in terms of obstruction. \nIntent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with.",
">\n\nIntent is absolutely relevant. Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling. Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling.",
">\n\nActually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t.",
">\n\nIntent matters in the prosecution. But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.\nI think we are done\nHave a good day!",
">\n\nIt feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance. 537 people at any given time. Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents.",
">\n\nThink they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information?",
">\n\nWe don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required.",
">\n\nSearch every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices.",
">\n\nSupreme Court Justices leak their documents.",
">\n\nLikely at least one former president does as well.",
">\n\none former president might do more than leak them.",
">\n\nOne current president has already sold documents to China and Ukraine so who knows",
">\n\nSo you claim, but I have seen any proof from anyone.",
">\n\nHis documents found in the Penn Biden Center which records have shown received millions in dollars of gifts from foreign nations. I know the evidence isn't directly saying he did but if it walks like a duck.",
">\n\nNo one knows what the docs were. Sorry thank you for playing.",
">\n\nFormer vice president Mike Pence’s lawyer turned over a dozen classified records over to the FBI after they were found at the former vice president’s home, CNN reported.\nThis article is not behind a paywall, but we welcome you to register for free or hit 'I'll try later' if you don't want to right now.",
">\n\nAt this point I’m wondering who hasn’t got classified documents floating around",
">\n\nI just checked my car and found a couple, which is weird because I’m just a regular dude.",
">\n\nI found one in my HelloFresh (not sponsored) recipe one time and just chucked it in the trash.",
">\n\nSerious question: When you leave office, why would you ever be like, yeah I want to bring with me a bunch of boxes full of paper documents I'll never look at and store them at my house?",
">\n\nI imagine this is a combination of the fact that these guys travel a lot, particularly positions like VP, so their staff is generally constantly picking everything up to be moved to AF2 and then wherever they land I imagine some of it comes with as well. With that much shuffling around of documents and then they leave office and just pack everything up I guess? It’s obviously a pretty negligent way of handling things but I’m betting the bulk majority of the ones Biden and Pence have handed over are nothingburger docs that aren’t highly classified or containing anything particularly juicy. It could be daily security briefs, it could be a schedule or their travel itinerary details potentially even if it has security specifics…I wouldn’t rush to judgement until we hear more. I think both cases are quite different from what Trump did, still negligent AF but I doubt malice.",
">\n\nSeriously I suspect if they searched most elected officials with top secret clearance, they would likely find documents. It’s not like our elected officials follow policies and procedures or act in ethical ways. It’s like they get points for playing dirty and cheating.",
">\n\nThey were turned in like they were supposed to be.",
">\n\nBoudoir photographs of Lindsey Graham are not classified documents, so long as mother doesn’t see them.",
">\n\nWelp, breakfast is officially over…",
">\n\nMother’s gonna be So mad.\nSeriously though, how do you not keep track of these at all? Like isn;t there a system where you fill out even a single form, I mean I never put anything in my closet when I checked out dissertations and papers form the the college research library, I always had the due date and fines hanging over my head.",
">\n\nClassified stuff is a little different, anything created from classified source material is also classified. \nIf you jot a note down from a meeting and put it in your desk to reference later, that’s mishandling classified info if the meeting is classified. It’s fine while you’re the VP/president, but once you lose that clearance it’s no longer fine. Not saying this is exactly what happened but just an example.\nSounds easy to avoid in one off instances, but imagine your in a position where your having these meetings, files and convos 24/7 for 4 years straight. It seems almost bound to happen at some point.\nNot trying to excuse it, but there’s definitely a reason it keeps happening.",
">\n\nTo be fair, those notes need to be secured properly.",
">\n\nwhoopsies! Seems like the shorter list will be who DOESN'T have classified documents\nTurns out the only one is Santos /s",
">\n\nHe'll probably lie about having some",
">\n\nLol now that I would believe…",
">\n\nCan we please investigate every living President and Vice President for this. From Potatoe misspelling Dan Quayle, to Habitat for Humanity Jimmy Carter.",
">\n\nWhy? Unless there is some suspected criminal activity, this is really a non issue.\nJust request everyone check their records and turn anything they shouldn’t have in.",
">\n\nI guarantee that every past president and VP is working to make sure they don't have any classified docs they shouldn't have. It was Pence's own attorneys who found the docs and I'm sure he's the one who directed them to search for them.\nThere's already a process on the books for returning classified docs. Folks are following the process (except for Trump who vehemently denied it even after they were found...)",
">\n\nI do understand why politicians take classified documents to their homes… At least he did the right thing, informed the FBI and turned them over, like Biden. Unlike the orange troll.\nThough, the archives need to strengthen its laws and stop politicians from taking any classified documents outside of secure government facilities. This is getting ridiculous.",
">\n\nAnybody else think this and the Biden story were leaked purposefully to 'innoculate' Trump? 'See, it's normal! All ex President's and VP's do it!' I wouldn't be very surprised at this point to hear about classified documents turning up in Jimmy Carter's bureau drawer.",
">\n\nI should check my file cabinet to make sure I don’t have any. Makes wonder how secure our security practices really are.",
">\n\nHow do local libraries have better records of who checked out books and when those books are due back?",
">\n\nEveryone check their homes. At this rate we all must have classified material lying around. \nThis is sadly hilarious.",
">\n\nI believe this was normal before all the attention was on Trump for lying and refusing to turn them over. We never heard about it since it was routine to pick up stray documents from prior administrations. Now, we are hearing every single time they find a document. It is probably a good idea to make the system better for tracking documents. They can't keep the President or Vice President from taking documents home, because, who will order them to? They need to keep track of who has what documents and retrieve them later when they are leaving or out of office.",
">\n\nFinally, excitement in Indiana",
">\n\nAt this point I'm starting to wonder if I have classified documents at my house too.",
">\n\nLOCK HER UP! /s",
">\n\nDifference is the Donald can just look at something and declassify it.",
">\n\nHe can just think about it and it’s declassified!",
">\n\nin b4 “classified documents found at dick cheneys underground dungeon”",
">\n\nIt's the National Archives that need to be investigated. There obviously isn't a working system in place to track and control classified material.",
">\n\nThey’re underfunded and understaffed for the amount of documents that they archive, and you know a House under GOP control isn’t going to allocate more money to them.",
">\n\nAm I the only one who doesn’t have classified documents at my house?",
">\n\nI just found a classified document under your mattress bro",
">\n\nOh those? I declassified them already.",
">\n\nInteresting, just also found your name on Epstein’s island list 🤔 care to explain why you were there",
">\n\nI cut ties with him after he tried to get me to join Herbalife.",
">\n\nSo you do confirm you were at the island? Can you also identify any other individuals that may have been there? 🤔",
">\n\nI do not recall but Bill Clinton could tell you.",
">\n\nAnd what did they make you do on said island? 🤔",
">\n\nSearch them all.\nEvery former Pres/VP, every former cabinet member, every current and former congress member.\nI'm sure in 99% of cases it'll be carelessness, forgetfulness, some intern not knowing what they're doing... the sheer volume of files these people deal with guarantees that occasionally something will go missing.\nBut we'll know who's careless and who's malevolent based on how they respond. Will they turn things over willingly like Biden and Pence, or will they lie and try to hide the documents and make excuses and whine and cry and shit themselves like Diaper Don?",
">\n\nThese breaches point to a larger, systemic, problem with how classified documents are handled by elected officials. I imagine there are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators with classified documents in their home offices. It may be nothing nefarious, but really sloppy handling.",
">\n\nThis isn’t uncommon. What is uncommon is the government needing to raid your property to get it back.",
">\n\nThe fireplaces are up and burning at the Bush and Clinton households",
">\n\nIte BBQ season in Washington!",
">\n\nThe training tends to be a joke. The lack of consequences is the problem. As the other commenter said, real people lose their jobs for honest mistakes and maybe go to jail for extreme carelessness.",
">\n\nI bet there is smoke coming from so many wealthy houses as people rush to burn documents before the FBI shows up.",
">\n\nSounds like these docs are as easy to keep track of as my ever expansive pile of post-its.",
">\n\nTag! You’re it!",
">\n\nI'm starting to worry that they are going to find classified documents at my nana's",
">\n\nI'm looking forward to the excuses Republicans use to explain why Biden's situation is treason and how Pence's situation is no big deal. I hope journalists put pressure on Republicans for when they do it, but I'm not going to hold my breath that journalists will.",
">\n\nI think this is a ploy to weaken Trump’s own classified document scandal. \nHey look at all those people with classified documents…no way you can charge me now!",
">\n\nAs long has he turns them over...but serious, can we please stop having high ranking politicians hold classified documents for 1 day?",
">\n\nHere we go!!",
">\n\nFeels like there should a Top Secret document audit of those in and out of power.\nProbably go as well as the DoD audit.",
">\n\nyes see you're supposed to return the documents if they are found; Pence and Biden are doing that, and Trump did not do that. this is the difference that really matters.",
">\n\nDid he think about declassifying them, because that's all he needed to do",
">\n\nSo everyone’s doing it",
">\n\nAll this is telling me is the US government does a shitty job controlling classified material. I bet if they go through all the senators offices/homes they will find classified crap.",
">\n\nWho cares? Republicans are above the law",
">\n\nlol, he has the perfect face.",
">\n\nThat’s what Mother says",
">\n\nAll the cool kids have classified documents.",
">\n\nI'm out in the cold again... lol",
">\n\nMother will not be happy.",
">\n\nPolitical parties aside, our federal government clearly has a controller document control issue. Absolutely maddening. How is this happening? Do these boomers just print out everything?",
">\n\nAt this point I am expecting them to announce that they found classified documents next to Obama' surfing board...",
">\n\nMaybe start blaming the National Archives a bit",
">\n\nBlame Hillary! I’m sure another #TrumpRant is coming, pointing the usual mango tanned finger at everyone else",
">\n\nthey ought to lock him up",
">\n\ni wonder how fox news will spin this?",
">\n\nMaybe they'll say that Trump declassified those documents for him, so nothing wrong...",
">\n\nDo I have classified documents at MY home?!",
">\n\nBet you a Billion Saudi dollars Jared Kushner has classified documents at one of his residences too.",
">\n\nOprah: “You get a classified document! And YOU get a classified document! YOU ALL get classified documents!!!”",
">\n\nI am just surprised that there are actual paper files floating around. Like, who has paper files anymore?",
">\n\nHe wasn’t allowed to receive his briefings without his wife in the vicinity. /s",
">\n\nCould all old shitty politicians from years yonder please just clean out their frickin garages and attics and save us all the trouble of having to investigate the classified shit you hoarded. Like really I’m done. How is it I get body searched entering a public building in eastbumblefuck and all of you all can’t help but store nuclear secrets like they’re 20 year old Christmas decorations.",
">\n\nOnly he who does not have classified paperwork at their domicile should cast the first stone.",
">\n\nExactly. President's and VP's having low-level (or even accidentally higher-level) classified documents at their places of residence isn't necessarily unusual or even bad (those places are guarded by USSS after all), what's bad is when those documents are found they are not immediately returned to the gov't and further searches aren't done. Trump failed to return documents after being notified and refused further searches until his hand was forced.",
">\n\nAnd queue the lack of republicans complaining about it in 3…2…1..",
">\n\nI’m officially tired of this story…",
">\n\nI'm not, I'm pissed that the indictments arent coming.",
">\n\nI agree about indictments.\nHowever, some old, irrelevant documents people didn’t even know they had *and are more than happy to return* is a lot less important to me than the republicans trying to add a 30% sales tax to EVERYTHING.\nWhich is what they’re trying to do right now.",
">\n\nYeah... but here's the thing, I think rule of law is more important than any individual politician. I don't think Pence or Biden had intent to commit a crime, but instead engaged in negligent handling of those old \"irrelevant\" (we don't know what's in them... it's secret) classified documents.\nMost of those Republicans should have been barred from office for refusing to impeach Trump over Jan 6th. The 14th amendment should have been applied to anyone who participated in the insurrection or its cover up. We wouldn't be dealing with this national sales tax nonsense (which will never get passed through the legislative branch) if democrats treated these fascist fucks like the traitors they are. Instead of trying to make an example of the Jan six rioters, prosecutors and our AG keep dragging their feet, while these judges keep handing out sentences for less time than a black man smoking a joint in his own home gets.",
">\n\n... Democrats aren't treating the insurrectionists seriously enough? How do you figure? I mean, I can understand frustration with Biden's Justice Dept., but that's (hopefully) tactical. But Democrats in general ...?",
">\n\nYes, the 14th amendment applies, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists bars a person from holding public office except where a thirds vote by congress rescinds that impediment... Democrats refuse to follow the constitution when they didn't demand a two thirds vote before seating those Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment. This isnt a case of both sides are the same, its more the drunk abusive dad and the enabling mom who let's the abuse continue for the sake of \"family\" unity. The abusive Dad is the problem, but the enabling mom is still shity.",
">\n\nI'm guessing with no chance of success it was just a calculation about how it would be interpreted. Which I agree is not what they should be thinking about; I'm all for principled action even if you know you won't prevail. Abusive dad, very physically weak mom, mebbe...",
">\n\nOk, I think I'm seeing a trend here. Who's next?",
">\n\nMy money would be on Pelosi, but maybe a surprise like Al Gore.",
">\n\nAlso it’s definitely Cheney but everyone is too scared of being shot to go check",
">\n\nOh he’s probably got a vault full. Good call!",
">\n\nIf nothing else Pence did save our democracy from the angry orange aholes supporters. Clearly he had selfish reasons though.",
">\n\nWhy is this all coming out now?",
">\n\nProbably because we’re witnessing policy being made by necessity. One guy gets caught doing something flagrantly and now everyone else is going to get a refresher course on doing it negligently.",
">\n\nJust remember if it were you or I and 99.99999% of everyone else here, they’d throw us in prison..but your name doesn’t end with Trump, Biden or Pence.",
">\n\nThey really wouldn't.\nPretty much every case where someone was locked up, they had a willfullnes issue, not just unintentionally having classified documents.\nThere is a difference.",
">\n\nI think it’s time for the justice department to begin investigating everyone with access to classified information. Senate intelligence committee. All prior presidents and VPs. I don’t trust any of them. I would have the FBI treat it as counterintelligence threat and investigate it properly and regularly vet and re-vet these idiots.",
">\n\nI want to add “What about a Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Baden’s laptop?!?!”\nThank you",
">\n\nWhat a surprise…. A bunch of career politicians, that really only care for power and influence, don’t follow their own rules! The older I get the more I lose faith in our government…. It seems like the vast majority of our leaders are corrupt.",
">\n\nAww shit here we go again…",
">\n\nAre they giving them away in swag bags for the state of the union after-party?",
">\n\nSo much for our illustrious, \"impenetrable\" classified system. Maybe its time for a revamp?",
">\n\nthey should check G. Bush house",
">\n\nI wish I could have sensitive documents in my home.",
">\n\nSpecial prosecutor needed soon\nFox: it’s no big deal",
">\n\nI imagine everyone who ever worked at a high level in the WH is scrambling to make sure they don’t have anything. Except the Clintons, who you know will be the only ones that already did that.",
">\n\nwell, well, well, how the turntables.",
">\n\nWonder what theyre looking for.",
">\n\nPence just has to say that the files were \"cool keepsakes\" that were declassified by Trump thinking about it and were planted there by the FBI when they were looking for Hillary Clinton's emails.\nAlways try to make a problem look like one that's already been solved!",
">\n\nJesus, he looks terrible. “Nothing fucks you like time.”",
">\n\nThis is starting to look like a you problem NARA.",
">\n\nIt’s almost as if this has always been a thing and was never seen as a big deal until this year. \nI’ve also heard many reporters say the level at which things are classified is ridiculous and that contributes to the fact they’re finding pretty much every current or former leader improperly possessing them. Apparently things as mundane as directions on how to use lunch vouchers as an employee of the CIA are marked classified.",
">\n\nClassified documents found in my home",
">\n\nDid mother approve?",
">\n\nshe probably packed them.",
">\n\nY'all should go over to FOX news and watch the spin...",
">\n\nI just go ask for classified documents. Beats buying toilet paper.",
">\n\ngood lord. just raid all of the politicians houses already and let’s end this hamster wheel of news resolved. \nalso maybe like lets turn this back to the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc. is anybody clean?",
">\n\nJust fucking lounge in the pool and watch your grandkids grow up for fucks sake.",
">\n\nSo all of these politicians are pieces of shit? Never would have thought\n/s",
">\n\nAnyone searched Jimmy Carter’s place yet",
">\n\nOh this is hilarious now… LOL.",
">\n\nThis is why Carter is building all those houses. He's got classified docs all over the place.",
">\n\nWho found them",
">\n\nReally? I wonder how’s the Republicans are going to spin this? They’ll do one or two things. Make this out worst than what it is …or make sure it appears it’s the worst thing any Republican ever done…. That’s not possible by anybodies standard.",
">\n\nWe might as well use these documents for paper mache, and snow flake cutting at this point since everyone seems to have some stacheed somewhere.",
">\n\nI was cleaning out my attic last weekend, and wouldn't you believe it, I found some classified government documents!!! It really can happen to anyone.",
">\n\nYeah, but that WWI classified.",
">\n\nNow it’s a pattern. No one is held accountable anyway so whatever..",
">\n\nYou know I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist (I am. Like pretty bad in some cases lol) but does this not seem fishy? Like all the people that the long term politicians at the top wouldn't want in the running are now having classified docs just suddenly appear in their homes in the dumbest of places? Maybe it's just me lol.",
">\n\nNone of these people have actually managed documents in years. In fact, they don't do any admin work. They are staffed. It would be like if you came home every day to cook dinner and all the ingredients are prepped and all you do is come in, put them in the pan and cook it. Then when your done, people come back and clean everything up for you. Here, people come in, hand them stuff to read and then either they hand them back or it ends up in a pile on their desk that someone else is supposed to manage. When they go on vacation or go home, they are still getting briefings. When VP Biden or Pence is at home in Delaware/Indiana, they still get the Presidential Daily Brief every single day and if there isn't staff on hand to tidy everything up it goes into a corner.",
">\n\n... seriously, don't they have enough space in their file cabinets in their work offices to fit these documents in?\nOr did they forget to remove the baby lock off of Trump's locker?",
">\n\nOf course he would live in Indiana…",
">\n\nK, do something about it.. oh wait... you are incompetent",
">\n\nA local county library does a better job of knowing who has checked out a book, and whether or not it has been returned than the National Archives can track who is in possession of highly classified documents?\nI think Trump stole the classified stuff whereas Biden and Pence committed acts of neglect in the failure to return documents.",
">\n\nFuckin lol",
">\n\nWhoopsies",
">\n\nHas anyone checked Stormy Daniels' underwear drawer for classified documents?",
">\n\nLock him up!!",
">\n\nThis is amazing. Did Oprah hand out documents to everyone and I missed it?!?",
">\n\neveryone turns to look at Obama\n\"Well?...\"",
">\n\nNow I am imaging Mike Pence shares the same cell with Trump—I know it is not gonna to happen but it is fun to think about it.",
">\n\nIn the words of Ro Khana this can be prevented if the broken system of classified document handling is reformed.",
">\n\nIn his mother’s closet?",
">\n\nIt’s almost like they all are profiting off classified information.",
">\n\nBet tuppence they find some at Dan quayles mañana",
">\n\nSounds like it is harder to sign out a library book than a classified document.",
">\n\nNational archive is some shit",
">\n\nAt this point, let’s just assume that all politicians take classified documents home. They should know better.",
">\n\nIs Oprah giving out classified documents?",
">\n\nAnd there will be no consequences.",
">\n\nLock him in next to Trump cell",
">\n\nI did not have sexual relations w the documents",
">\n\nThis is turning into a whitewash to protect Trump from being harshly prosecuted for his documents crimes. To protect the “office” …",
">\n\nI've heard this one before...",
">\n\nTrump declassified them",
">\n\nI get the feeling everyone is being outed for this so trump can get off scot free “see everyone else had done it” will be what gets him off even if he did treasonous things with the docs. \nTrump will never see a criminal charge and it makes me insanely angry.",
">\n\nSo I propose that anyone who had a classified document in their homes or offices be disqualified from running for President.",
">\n\nAwwShitHereWeGoAgain.jpg",
">\n\nLock him up boys.",
">\n\nAlright, fuck it. Since everyone else is doing it…I have a few classified documents at my house too. I keep mine on the fridge next to our shopping list and sometimes when I go grocery shopping I’ll be like, “Where’s the enriched uranium…dammit! Brought the wrong list again!” And I have a chuckle in the cereal isle. Fun times.",
">\n\nDon’t they mean couch? I thought he was couch surfing, to hide from all the people who called him a traitor??",
">\n\n\"You get classified documents...and you get classified documents...EVERYONE GETS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS...\"\n- Oprah probably",
">\n\nI am only interested in two things:\n\n\nI hope this causes the government to reevaluate its processes of classification and how classified documents are handled.\n\n\nWas Pence one of the jackasses sounding off on Biden about the docs found at his properties?",
">\n\nOk garland, cough up another special prosecutor. And you’d better have a few more ready for Kamala, and any other former white house presidential contenders for 2024.",
">\n\nHow will MTG spin this one?",
">\n\nI have seen better tracking at my local library. Wtf is going on",
">\n\nThere needs to be some consequences for those servicemembers who handle and transport these documents. Someone isn’t doing their job. Many someones.",
">\n\nCaught white-handed.",
">\n\nNow they are just fucking with us right?",
">\n\nLet’s see what happens when regular Joe Smith has some of these documents in their house…\nhe is arrested and labeled a terrorist, sent to a black hole to rot for 30 years.",
">\n\nCan I offer a suggestion? Library cards. You check out classified stuff with a library card. Late fees are assessed at 1m per day per document.",
">\n\nSomeone please tell me what to think. Are we ok with this or not? It's hard to keep track :(",
">\n\nTime to check Obama’s house. Biden stole him while he was his vice president. Pence was Trumps. This might’ve been going on for a long time. Let’s check the Clintons and the Bushs as well.",
">\n\n“Is this treason?” —Faux Nooz host and Trump sycophant María Batshitaromo",
">\n\nAt this point it might be easier to list the people who DON’T have classified material at their homes.",
">\n\nHoly shit, this is just getting absurd.\nAlso, it would be great if we could stop reporting on this when everyone involved is actually following the correct process and turning them over right away. This shouldn't have been news.",
">\n\nFor fucks sake",
">\n\nI believe it’s a very common thing for President and Vice President too accidentally take both classified and unclassified documents with them when they leave office cause when you are done you and your staff take everything so the new administration can take over quickly.",
">\n\nHomeboy lookin like that potato on oddly terrifying",
">\n\nNew rule.\nIf documents are found you need to give up your public function.\nLet’s see what remains 😁",
">\n\nHow convenient. Had to have something to cover up the Biden discovery… now what? Go raid Nancy’s and Kamala’s house and every member of Congress.",
">\n\nHow convenient, we are just gonna forget about Trump? Lmao",
">\n\nNahhh. It started with Trump but guess what. EVERYONE IS DOING IT. Now what",
">\n\nNot everyone is hiding documents, claiming declassified, and having lawyers tell NA and DoJ there are no other documents. Not everyone had to be raided to retrieve 300+ documents.\nEveryone lately has had a few documents that were handed over without the need to raid anyone.\nTotally the same. Uh-huh.",
">\n\nI work for the FBI. No one invaded or seized anything from Mar A Lago or Pence's place\nSo somebody invaded a president's home and then purported its contents\nI'm agent 474, Kyle, third officer of the FBI. Call me and ask about our invasions.",
">\n\nThese guys are fucking idiots. Don’t they know how to learn from other peoples mistakes? Remember that month long thing that happened with trump? Do something with your fucking documents! Jeez"
] |
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.
|
[] |
>
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans."
] |
/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards
|
[] |
>
It adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card.
Quite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?
If someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.
Assuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards"
] |
>
that it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.
I see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.
This proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries."
] |
>
Lower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?"
] |
>
Yes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do."
] |
>
A wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)
So it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?"
] |
>
It's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay!
Not buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:
The goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad."
] |
>
You mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal."
] |
>
You mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.
Nope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.
Disproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.
In my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate.
We can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :)
And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,
OP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes."
] |
>
Nope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.
Then you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right.
To your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for."
] |
>
As a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people."
] |
>
Manage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet.
Government subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account."
] |
>
It makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either."
] |
>
I've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said"
] |
>
An HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off.
The additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo."
] |
>
I think I see the goal here pretty clearly:
It is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table
The goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans
The poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.
When the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.
Your police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food.
of course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.
If you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.
using subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off."
] |
>
of course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.
Shifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes."
] |
>
As a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income."
] |
>
It's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of "well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?"
] |
>
Given that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers."
] |
>
The small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?"
] |
>
Why do this instead of a cash UBI?
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food."
] |
>
It's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?"
] |
>
eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits
How much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.
If there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway."
] |
>
You’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!
I had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities.
This is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?"
] |
>
From what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that."
] |
>
All this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors."
] |
>
What evidence do you have that it would raise prices?
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay."
] |
>
Everything the government has ever subsidized?
Government loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.
Any time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.
Now, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?"
] |
>
The relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy."
] |
>
That's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.
For poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.
And for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again.
Efficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.
The restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage."
] |
>
I think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.
It’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really."
] |
>
Food is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well."
] |
>
The comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.
Edit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves."
] |
>
So you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?
It's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients."
] |
>
Probably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda."
] |
>
If everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program."
] |
>
Question, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives.
If you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?"
] |
>
Americans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.
The issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?"
] |
>
To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly."
] |
>
\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.
The issue here comes primarily from 2 places.
1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.
2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).
This is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.
EDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt."
] |
>
You are talking about something different than OP.
trying to put food on the table
I'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food.
I have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point.
You really got to identify the point your making and be concise.
Your anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue."
] |
>
"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt."
Nice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling."
] |
>
I responded to your comment. Not OP.
Maybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it."
] |
>
i guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash
the problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to
so i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here."
] |
>
It's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it"
] |
>
This is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that."
] |
>
The people that need this the most likely don't pay any income tax in the first place. Getting an extra tax deduction means nothing at that point. Where it will mean a possible deduction that is useful is the middle class and upper class. The middle class is forced to use it or end up paying more in tax for not playing the game. The upper class has an accountant who will figure the optimal amount for them right off the bat.
In order to find the extra benefits, we either need to raise taxes or just crank up the debt even more. I know a lot of people like to ignore the debt but it will come back to bite us at some point. As it is, something like $400 billion in interest is paid in a year. Over the next few years, that could reach into the trillions.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.",
">\n\nThis is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?"
] |
>
The people who already qualify for SNAP would still get the level of benefits (which would be above $100/month), the wider and new benefit would be for the middle income who currently buy their groceries with post-tax dollars and would be able to buy groceries with pre-tax dollars lowering their tax liability without changing their behavior.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.",
">\n\nThis is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?",
">\n\nThe people that need this the most likely don't pay any income tax in the first place. Getting an extra tax deduction means nothing at that point. Where it will mean a possible deduction that is useful is the middle class and upper class. The middle class is forced to use it or end up paying more in tax for not playing the game. The upper class has an accountant who will figure the optimal amount for them right off the bat. \nIn order to find the extra benefits, we either need to raise taxes or just crank up the debt even more. I know a lot of people like to ignore the debt but it will come back to bite us at some point. As it is, something like $400 billion in interest is paid in a year. Over the next few years, that could reach into the trillions."
] |
>
If current recipients are going to get the same amount, and the middle and upper classes are going to be the ones getting the benefit under this proposal, you are increasing spending while powering tax revenue. I don't see that being a good idea given the current budget situation.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.",
">\n\nThis is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?",
">\n\nThe people that need this the most likely don't pay any income tax in the first place. Getting an extra tax deduction means nothing at that point. Where it will mean a possible deduction that is useful is the middle class and upper class. The middle class is forced to use it or end up paying more in tax for not playing the game. The upper class has an accountant who will figure the optimal amount for them right off the bat. \nIn order to find the extra benefits, we either need to raise taxes or just crank up the debt even more. I know a lot of people like to ignore the debt but it will come back to bite us at some point. As it is, something like $400 billion in interest is paid in a year. Over the next few years, that could reach into the trillions.",
">\n\nThe people who already qualify for SNAP would still get the level of benefits (which would be above $100/month), the wider and new benefit would be for the middle income who currently buy their groceries with post-tax dollars and would be able to buy groceries with pre-tax dollars lowering their tax liability without changing their behavior."
] |
>
Show Me Your Budget, And I’ll Show You What You Value
If the federal budget needs to be brought in line to reflect the values of the American people that would value life sustaining resources over bombs, then so be it.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.",
">\n\nThis is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?",
">\n\nThe people that need this the most likely don't pay any income tax in the first place. Getting an extra tax deduction means nothing at that point. Where it will mean a possible deduction that is useful is the middle class and upper class. The middle class is forced to use it or end up paying more in tax for not playing the game. The upper class has an accountant who will figure the optimal amount for them right off the bat. \nIn order to find the extra benefits, we either need to raise taxes or just crank up the debt even more. I know a lot of people like to ignore the debt but it will come back to bite us at some point. As it is, something like $400 billion in interest is paid in a year. Over the next few years, that could reach into the trillions.",
">\n\nThe people who already qualify for SNAP would still get the level of benefits (which would be above $100/month), the wider and new benefit would be for the middle income who currently buy their groceries with post-tax dollars and would be able to buy groceries with pre-tax dollars lowering their tax liability without changing their behavior.",
">\n\nIf current recipients are going to get the same amount, and the middle and upper classes are going to be the ones getting the benefit under this proposal, you are increasing spending while powering tax revenue. I don't see that being a good idea given the current budget situation."
] |
>
It seems redundant to expect everyone in the country to pay additional taxes to cover their own SNAP benefits. I don’t know cost concerns you’re trying to alleviate. Assume every single person’s taxes increase $100/month so they can get a get a $100 SNAP card? And since it’s universal, the Kardashians, Elon Musk, CEOs, doctors, lawyers… would all get $100 every month?
The whole reason that SNAP works is because the population who is better off, helps cover the expenses for those lesser well off.
This is the prime example of why good intentions don’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.",
">\n\nThis is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?",
">\n\nThe people that need this the most likely don't pay any income tax in the first place. Getting an extra tax deduction means nothing at that point. Where it will mean a possible deduction that is useful is the middle class and upper class. The middle class is forced to use it or end up paying more in tax for not playing the game. The upper class has an accountant who will figure the optimal amount for them right off the bat. \nIn order to find the extra benefits, we either need to raise taxes or just crank up the debt even more. I know a lot of people like to ignore the debt but it will come back to bite us at some point. As it is, something like $400 billion in interest is paid in a year. Over the next few years, that could reach into the trillions.",
">\n\nThe people who already qualify for SNAP would still get the level of benefits (which would be above $100/month), the wider and new benefit would be for the middle income who currently buy their groceries with post-tax dollars and would be able to buy groceries with pre-tax dollars lowering their tax liability without changing their behavior.",
">\n\nIf current recipients are going to get the same amount, and the middle and upper classes are going to be the ones getting the benefit under this proposal, you are increasing spending while powering tax revenue. I don't see that being a good idea given the current budget situation.",
">\n\nShow Me Your Budget, And I’ll Show You What You Value\nIf the federal budget needs to be brought in line to reflect the values of the American people that would value life sustaining resources over bombs, then so be it."
] |
>
There is a form of food stamps everywhere minus 26 countries. Yes I do agree.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.",
">\n\nThis is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?",
">\n\nThe people that need this the most likely don't pay any income tax in the first place. Getting an extra tax deduction means nothing at that point. Where it will mean a possible deduction that is useful is the middle class and upper class. The middle class is forced to use it or end up paying more in tax for not playing the game. The upper class has an accountant who will figure the optimal amount for them right off the bat. \nIn order to find the extra benefits, we either need to raise taxes or just crank up the debt even more. I know a lot of people like to ignore the debt but it will come back to bite us at some point. As it is, something like $400 billion in interest is paid in a year. Over the next few years, that could reach into the trillions.",
">\n\nThe people who already qualify for SNAP would still get the level of benefits (which would be above $100/month), the wider and new benefit would be for the middle income who currently buy their groceries with post-tax dollars and would be able to buy groceries with pre-tax dollars lowering their tax liability without changing their behavior.",
">\n\nIf current recipients are going to get the same amount, and the middle and upper classes are going to be the ones getting the benefit under this proposal, you are increasing spending while powering tax revenue. I don't see that being a good idea given the current budget situation.",
">\n\nShow Me Your Budget, And I’ll Show You What You Value\nIf the federal budget needs to be brought in line to reflect the values of the American people that would value life sustaining resources over bombs, then so be it.",
">\n\nIt seems redundant to expect everyone in the country to pay additional taxes to cover their own SNAP benefits. I don’t know cost concerns you’re trying to alleviate. Assume every single person’s taxes increase $100/month so they can get a get a $100 SNAP card? And since it’s universal, the Kardashians, Elon Musk, CEOs, doctors, lawyers… would all get $100 every month? \nThe whole reason that SNAP works is because the population who is better off, helps cover the expenses for those lesser well off. \nThis is the prime example of why good intentions don’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea"
] |
>
So you want to take a relatively simple system (relatively speaking) and replace it with a more complicated, more costly, confusing system. All just to cover more people.
This is a shitty idea for so many reasons. The two biggest would be: 1) Cost: you are making a program much more expensive than it needs to be. The most significant costs will be in the IRS to enforce this program, since you have now effectively put it in their jurisdiction. You may not realize this, but that is the result. This will also disproportionately effect people on the margins, the working poor. These people may not qualify under your proposal, and they didn’t qualify for the old one. Now you’re making their financial lives more complex, and making their tax filings more complex. Again, you may not have thought of this….but is unavoidable.
2) You now made a relatively niche program that the majority of taxpayers never give a second thought to, and you’re making it a vital part of everyone’s lives. This would suddenly make it ‘everyone’s issue’. And it will get debated and potentially cut at rates much greater than the current program.
Trying to cover more people is a cause I agree with. I would be absolutely disgusted if the government did something like what you’re suggesting. It is so economically inefficient, it will end up increasing the projects cost many times. It takes a program that only benefits a minority of people, and makes it everyone’s issue. And all for literally no reason. The amount of bureaucracy required in your plan is just absurd.
There are many other reasons that your idea sucks, these are just the two most glaringly troublesome in my eyes.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.",
">\n\nThis is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?",
">\n\nThe people that need this the most likely don't pay any income tax in the first place. Getting an extra tax deduction means nothing at that point. Where it will mean a possible deduction that is useful is the middle class and upper class. The middle class is forced to use it or end up paying more in tax for not playing the game. The upper class has an accountant who will figure the optimal amount for them right off the bat. \nIn order to find the extra benefits, we either need to raise taxes or just crank up the debt even more. I know a lot of people like to ignore the debt but it will come back to bite us at some point. As it is, something like $400 billion in interest is paid in a year. Over the next few years, that could reach into the trillions.",
">\n\nThe people who already qualify for SNAP would still get the level of benefits (which would be above $100/month), the wider and new benefit would be for the middle income who currently buy their groceries with post-tax dollars and would be able to buy groceries with pre-tax dollars lowering their tax liability without changing their behavior.",
">\n\nIf current recipients are going to get the same amount, and the middle and upper classes are going to be the ones getting the benefit under this proposal, you are increasing spending while powering tax revenue. I don't see that being a good idea given the current budget situation.",
">\n\nShow Me Your Budget, And I’ll Show You What You Value\nIf the federal budget needs to be brought in line to reflect the values of the American people that would value life sustaining resources over bombs, then so be it.",
">\n\nIt seems redundant to expect everyone in the country to pay additional taxes to cover their own SNAP benefits. I don’t know cost concerns you’re trying to alleviate. Assume every single person’s taxes increase $100/month so they can get a get a $100 SNAP card? And since it’s universal, the Kardashians, Elon Musk, CEOs, doctors, lawyers… would all get $100 every month? \nThe whole reason that SNAP works is because the population who is better off, helps cover the expenses for those lesser well off. \nThis is the prime example of why good intentions don’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea",
">\n\nThere is a form of food stamps everywhere minus 26 countries. Yes I do agree."
] |
>
Why not simply provide everyone with a universal basic income? There's much less of a likelihood of creating inflation on everyday goods with that approach, and it'd allow each family to be flexible about where they lived and how they spent their money, which would help alleviate the densification of the working population that drives costs up for things like housing.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.",
">\n\nThis is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?",
">\n\nThe people that need this the most likely don't pay any income tax in the first place. Getting an extra tax deduction means nothing at that point. Where it will mean a possible deduction that is useful is the middle class and upper class. The middle class is forced to use it or end up paying more in tax for not playing the game. The upper class has an accountant who will figure the optimal amount for them right off the bat. \nIn order to find the extra benefits, we either need to raise taxes or just crank up the debt even more. I know a lot of people like to ignore the debt but it will come back to bite us at some point. As it is, something like $400 billion in interest is paid in a year. Over the next few years, that could reach into the trillions.",
">\n\nThe people who already qualify for SNAP would still get the level of benefits (which would be above $100/month), the wider and new benefit would be for the middle income who currently buy their groceries with post-tax dollars and would be able to buy groceries with pre-tax dollars lowering their tax liability without changing their behavior.",
">\n\nIf current recipients are going to get the same amount, and the middle and upper classes are going to be the ones getting the benefit under this proposal, you are increasing spending while powering tax revenue. I don't see that being a good idea given the current budget situation.",
">\n\nShow Me Your Budget, And I’ll Show You What You Value\nIf the federal budget needs to be brought in line to reflect the values of the American people that would value life sustaining resources over bombs, then so be it.",
">\n\nIt seems redundant to expect everyone in the country to pay additional taxes to cover their own SNAP benefits. I don’t know cost concerns you’re trying to alleviate. Assume every single person’s taxes increase $100/month so they can get a get a $100 SNAP card? And since it’s universal, the Kardashians, Elon Musk, CEOs, doctors, lawyers… would all get $100 every month? \nThe whole reason that SNAP works is because the population who is better off, helps cover the expenses for those lesser well off. \nThis is the prime example of why good intentions don’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea",
">\n\nThere is a form of food stamps everywhere minus 26 countries. Yes I do agree.",
">\n\nSo you want to take a relatively simple system (relatively speaking) and replace it with a more complicated, more costly, confusing system. All just to cover more people. \nThis is a shitty idea for so many reasons. The two biggest would be: 1) Cost: you are making a program much more expensive than it needs to be. The most significant costs will be in the IRS to enforce this program, since you have now effectively put it in their jurisdiction. You may not realize this, but that is the result. This will also disproportionately effect people on the margins, the working poor. These people may not qualify under your proposal, and they didn’t qualify for the old one. Now you’re making their financial lives more complex, and making their tax filings more complex. Again, you may not have thought of this….but is unavoidable. \n 2) You now made a relatively niche program that the majority of taxpayers never give a second thought to, and you’re making it a vital part of everyone’s lives. This would suddenly make it ‘everyone’s issue’. And it will get debated and potentially cut at rates much greater than the current program. \nTrying to cover more people is a cause I agree with. I would be absolutely disgusted if the government did something like what you’re suggesting. It is so economically inefficient, it will end up increasing the projects cost many times. It takes a program that only benefits a minority of people, and makes it everyone’s issue. And all for literally no reason. The amount of bureaucracy required in your plan is just absurd. \nThere are many other reasons that your idea sucks, these are just the two most glaringly troublesome in my eyes."
] |
>
Great take an extra 500 dollars from those who do not need assistance and give us back 100 dollars. There is no limit on how much of another persons money the government (and those who support them) is willing to spend.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.",
">\n\nThis is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?",
">\n\nThe people that need this the most likely don't pay any income tax in the first place. Getting an extra tax deduction means nothing at that point. Where it will mean a possible deduction that is useful is the middle class and upper class. The middle class is forced to use it or end up paying more in tax for not playing the game. The upper class has an accountant who will figure the optimal amount for them right off the bat. \nIn order to find the extra benefits, we either need to raise taxes or just crank up the debt even more. I know a lot of people like to ignore the debt but it will come back to bite us at some point. As it is, something like $400 billion in interest is paid in a year. Over the next few years, that could reach into the trillions.",
">\n\nThe people who already qualify for SNAP would still get the level of benefits (which would be above $100/month), the wider and new benefit would be for the middle income who currently buy their groceries with post-tax dollars and would be able to buy groceries with pre-tax dollars lowering their tax liability without changing their behavior.",
">\n\nIf current recipients are going to get the same amount, and the middle and upper classes are going to be the ones getting the benefit under this proposal, you are increasing spending while powering tax revenue. I don't see that being a good idea given the current budget situation.",
">\n\nShow Me Your Budget, And I’ll Show You What You Value\nIf the federal budget needs to be brought in line to reflect the values of the American people that would value life sustaining resources over bombs, then so be it.",
">\n\nIt seems redundant to expect everyone in the country to pay additional taxes to cover their own SNAP benefits. I don’t know cost concerns you’re trying to alleviate. Assume every single person’s taxes increase $100/month so they can get a get a $100 SNAP card? And since it’s universal, the Kardashians, Elon Musk, CEOs, doctors, lawyers… would all get $100 every month? \nThe whole reason that SNAP works is because the population who is better off, helps cover the expenses for those lesser well off. \nThis is the prime example of why good intentions don’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea",
">\n\nThere is a form of food stamps everywhere minus 26 countries. Yes I do agree.",
">\n\nSo you want to take a relatively simple system (relatively speaking) and replace it with a more complicated, more costly, confusing system. All just to cover more people. \nThis is a shitty idea for so many reasons. The two biggest would be: 1) Cost: you are making a program much more expensive than it needs to be. The most significant costs will be in the IRS to enforce this program, since you have now effectively put it in their jurisdiction. You may not realize this, but that is the result. This will also disproportionately effect people on the margins, the working poor. These people may not qualify under your proposal, and they didn’t qualify for the old one. Now you’re making their financial lives more complex, and making their tax filings more complex. Again, you may not have thought of this….but is unavoidable. \n 2) You now made a relatively niche program that the majority of taxpayers never give a second thought to, and you’re making it a vital part of everyone’s lives. This would suddenly make it ‘everyone’s issue’. And it will get debated and potentially cut at rates much greater than the current program. \nTrying to cover more people is a cause I agree with. I would be absolutely disgusted if the government did something like what you’re suggesting. It is so economically inefficient, it will end up increasing the projects cost many times. It takes a program that only benefits a minority of people, and makes it everyone’s issue. And all for literally no reason. The amount of bureaucracy required in your plan is just absurd. \nThere are many other reasons that your idea sucks, these are just the two most glaringly troublesome in my eyes.",
">\n\nWhy not simply provide everyone with a universal basic income? There's much less of a likelihood of creating inflation on everyday goods with that approach, and it'd allow each family to be flexible about where they lived and how they spent their money, which would help alleviate the densification of the working population that drives costs up for things like housing."
] |
>
Almost all food is already not taxed in most states. SNAP for everyone would discourage people from working as much. People can already live on Ramen noodles for $150 per year and I once bought sixty eggs and a gallon of milk for $60, plus a bag of shredded cheese for a few more dollars. Costco, whose membership is refundable after purchases, sells a 25-lb bag of rice for $18 and a 50-lb bag of rice for $19. Black beans are also very cheap, and people can live on their only nutrients as being from potatoes and butter.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.",
">\n\nThis is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?",
">\n\nThe people that need this the most likely don't pay any income tax in the first place. Getting an extra tax deduction means nothing at that point. Where it will mean a possible deduction that is useful is the middle class and upper class. The middle class is forced to use it or end up paying more in tax for not playing the game. The upper class has an accountant who will figure the optimal amount for them right off the bat. \nIn order to find the extra benefits, we either need to raise taxes or just crank up the debt even more. I know a lot of people like to ignore the debt but it will come back to bite us at some point. As it is, something like $400 billion in interest is paid in a year. Over the next few years, that could reach into the trillions.",
">\n\nThe people who already qualify for SNAP would still get the level of benefits (which would be above $100/month), the wider and new benefit would be for the middle income who currently buy their groceries with post-tax dollars and would be able to buy groceries with pre-tax dollars lowering their tax liability without changing their behavior.",
">\n\nIf current recipients are going to get the same amount, and the middle and upper classes are going to be the ones getting the benefit under this proposal, you are increasing spending while powering tax revenue. I don't see that being a good idea given the current budget situation.",
">\n\nShow Me Your Budget, And I’ll Show You What You Value\nIf the federal budget needs to be brought in line to reflect the values of the American people that would value life sustaining resources over bombs, then so be it.",
">\n\nIt seems redundant to expect everyone in the country to pay additional taxes to cover their own SNAP benefits. I don’t know cost concerns you’re trying to alleviate. Assume every single person’s taxes increase $100/month so they can get a get a $100 SNAP card? And since it’s universal, the Kardashians, Elon Musk, CEOs, doctors, lawyers… would all get $100 every month? \nThe whole reason that SNAP works is because the population who is better off, helps cover the expenses for those lesser well off. \nThis is the prime example of why good intentions don’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea",
">\n\nThere is a form of food stamps everywhere minus 26 countries. Yes I do agree.",
">\n\nSo you want to take a relatively simple system (relatively speaking) and replace it with a more complicated, more costly, confusing system. All just to cover more people. \nThis is a shitty idea for so many reasons. The two biggest would be: 1) Cost: you are making a program much more expensive than it needs to be. The most significant costs will be in the IRS to enforce this program, since you have now effectively put it in their jurisdiction. You may not realize this, but that is the result. This will also disproportionately effect people on the margins, the working poor. These people may not qualify under your proposal, and they didn’t qualify for the old one. Now you’re making their financial lives more complex, and making their tax filings more complex. Again, you may not have thought of this….but is unavoidable. \n 2) You now made a relatively niche program that the majority of taxpayers never give a second thought to, and you’re making it a vital part of everyone’s lives. This would suddenly make it ‘everyone’s issue’. And it will get debated and potentially cut at rates much greater than the current program. \nTrying to cover more people is a cause I agree with. I would be absolutely disgusted if the government did something like what you’re suggesting. It is so economically inefficient, it will end up increasing the projects cost many times. It takes a program that only benefits a minority of people, and makes it everyone’s issue. And all for literally no reason. The amount of bureaucracy required in your plan is just absurd. \nThere are many other reasons that your idea sucks, these are just the two most glaringly troublesome in my eyes.",
">\n\nWhy not simply provide everyone with a universal basic income? There's much less of a likelihood of creating inflation on everyday goods with that approach, and it'd allow each family to be flexible about where they lived and how they spent their money, which would help alleviate the densification of the working population that drives costs up for things like housing.",
">\n\nGreat take an extra 500 dollars from those who do not need assistance and give us back 100 dollars. There is no limit on how much of another persons money the government (and those who support them) is willing to spend."
] |
>
This would go the extra step of giving tax advantages for every dollar spent on groceries, like HSAs the money being elected by each person would be pre-tax thereby lowering the taxable income. Why should there be tax advantages for investing but not for everyone who eats food that they prepare themselves? Food doesn't have a sales tax, but the money used to buy that food is taxed when it's earned in a paycheck, whether it is payroll tax (social security and Medicare) or for those earning more income tax, this proposal would give the working American hundreds of dollars back in their pockets and it wouldn't be means tested (just like social security and Medicare) meaning everyone benefits.
The argument that "if people have any of their basic needs meet, they become lazy" just isn't born out in reality. Prison delivers basic needs and most prisoners don't become ostensibly comatose out of sheer slovenly nature of having basic needs met. If you had security that you would not be homeless, starving and left destitute would you tien into a lethargic rhetorical slug? I don't know you but I suspect that the answer is "no". Alleviating the possibility of destitution hasn't turned the rest of the wealthy nations of the world into a nation of lazy bums, their people are less likely to die deaths of despair, seek out academic achievement at higher levels, have more free time with friends and family, and all that across 30+ countries that have robust welfare states. Maybe reality is not that there needs to be economic retribution to every individual who is maximally providing their labor to their employers (more often than not, multiple jobs need to be worked for the bottom of the labor market). There's burger flippers in all those other wealthy countries and they don't need to work 2-3 of those low wage jobs, but somehow only the American worker needs to karmically punished and economically tortured because if they didn't the American would somehow be sinfully free to lead his/her life to as they want?
Everyone eats food, this proposal just makes it easier for everyone by providing relief for the thing everyone will paying for anyway. Why shouldn't it be made easier for everyone's wallet to eat? What moral danger is there to take some of that household expenses off everyone's family budget? If it works out and the public likes joining the rest of the developed nations having a government that provides services and benefits to them and not just the wealthy and well connected, isn't that what a government of the people, by the people, and for the people should be doing anyway?
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.",
">\n\nThis is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?",
">\n\nThe people that need this the most likely don't pay any income tax in the first place. Getting an extra tax deduction means nothing at that point. Where it will mean a possible deduction that is useful is the middle class and upper class. The middle class is forced to use it or end up paying more in tax for not playing the game. The upper class has an accountant who will figure the optimal amount for them right off the bat. \nIn order to find the extra benefits, we either need to raise taxes or just crank up the debt even more. I know a lot of people like to ignore the debt but it will come back to bite us at some point. As it is, something like $400 billion in interest is paid in a year. Over the next few years, that could reach into the trillions.",
">\n\nThe people who already qualify for SNAP would still get the level of benefits (which would be above $100/month), the wider and new benefit would be for the middle income who currently buy their groceries with post-tax dollars and would be able to buy groceries with pre-tax dollars lowering their tax liability without changing their behavior.",
">\n\nIf current recipients are going to get the same amount, and the middle and upper classes are going to be the ones getting the benefit under this proposal, you are increasing spending while powering tax revenue. I don't see that being a good idea given the current budget situation.",
">\n\nShow Me Your Budget, And I’ll Show You What You Value\nIf the federal budget needs to be brought in line to reflect the values of the American people that would value life sustaining resources over bombs, then so be it.",
">\n\nIt seems redundant to expect everyone in the country to pay additional taxes to cover their own SNAP benefits. I don’t know cost concerns you’re trying to alleviate. Assume every single person’s taxes increase $100/month so they can get a get a $100 SNAP card? And since it’s universal, the Kardashians, Elon Musk, CEOs, doctors, lawyers… would all get $100 every month? \nThe whole reason that SNAP works is because the population who is better off, helps cover the expenses for those lesser well off. \nThis is the prime example of why good intentions don’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea",
">\n\nThere is a form of food stamps everywhere minus 26 countries. Yes I do agree.",
">\n\nSo you want to take a relatively simple system (relatively speaking) and replace it with a more complicated, more costly, confusing system. All just to cover more people. \nThis is a shitty idea for so many reasons. The two biggest would be: 1) Cost: you are making a program much more expensive than it needs to be. The most significant costs will be in the IRS to enforce this program, since you have now effectively put it in their jurisdiction. You may not realize this, but that is the result. This will also disproportionately effect people on the margins, the working poor. These people may not qualify under your proposal, and they didn’t qualify for the old one. Now you’re making their financial lives more complex, and making their tax filings more complex. Again, you may not have thought of this….but is unavoidable. \n 2) You now made a relatively niche program that the majority of taxpayers never give a second thought to, and you’re making it a vital part of everyone’s lives. This would suddenly make it ‘everyone’s issue’. And it will get debated and potentially cut at rates much greater than the current program. \nTrying to cover more people is a cause I agree with. I would be absolutely disgusted if the government did something like what you’re suggesting. It is so economically inefficient, it will end up increasing the projects cost many times. It takes a program that only benefits a minority of people, and makes it everyone’s issue. And all for literally no reason. The amount of bureaucracy required in your plan is just absurd. \nThere are many other reasons that your idea sucks, these are just the two most glaringly troublesome in my eyes.",
">\n\nWhy not simply provide everyone with a universal basic income? There's much less of a likelihood of creating inflation on everyday goods with that approach, and it'd allow each family to be flexible about where they lived and how they spent their money, which would help alleviate the densification of the working population that drives costs up for things like housing.",
">\n\nGreat take an extra 500 dollars from those who do not need assistance and give us back 100 dollars. There is no limit on how much of another persons money the government (and those who support them) is willing to spend.",
">\n\nAlmost all food is already not taxed in most states. SNAP for everyone would discourage people from working as much. People can already live on Ramen noodles for $150 per year and I once bought sixty eggs and a gallon of milk for $60, plus a bag of shredded cheese for a few more dollars. Costco, whose membership is refundable after purchases, sells a 25-lb bag of rice for $18 and a 50-lb bag of rice for $19. Black beans are also very cheap, and people can live on their only nutrients as being from potatoes and butter."
] |
>
Are you going to fund this, or are you going to demand others have their money stolen to fund it?
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.",
">\n\nThis is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?",
">\n\nThe people that need this the most likely don't pay any income tax in the first place. Getting an extra tax deduction means nothing at that point. Where it will mean a possible deduction that is useful is the middle class and upper class. The middle class is forced to use it or end up paying more in tax for not playing the game. The upper class has an accountant who will figure the optimal amount for them right off the bat. \nIn order to find the extra benefits, we either need to raise taxes or just crank up the debt even more. I know a lot of people like to ignore the debt but it will come back to bite us at some point. As it is, something like $400 billion in interest is paid in a year. Over the next few years, that could reach into the trillions.",
">\n\nThe people who already qualify for SNAP would still get the level of benefits (which would be above $100/month), the wider and new benefit would be for the middle income who currently buy their groceries with post-tax dollars and would be able to buy groceries with pre-tax dollars lowering their tax liability without changing their behavior.",
">\n\nIf current recipients are going to get the same amount, and the middle and upper classes are going to be the ones getting the benefit under this proposal, you are increasing spending while powering tax revenue. I don't see that being a good idea given the current budget situation.",
">\n\nShow Me Your Budget, And I’ll Show You What You Value\nIf the federal budget needs to be brought in line to reflect the values of the American people that would value life sustaining resources over bombs, then so be it.",
">\n\nIt seems redundant to expect everyone in the country to pay additional taxes to cover their own SNAP benefits. I don’t know cost concerns you’re trying to alleviate. Assume every single person’s taxes increase $100/month so they can get a get a $100 SNAP card? And since it’s universal, the Kardashians, Elon Musk, CEOs, doctors, lawyers… would all get $100 every month? \nThe whole reason that SNAP works is because the population who is better off, helps cover the expenses for those lesser well off. \nThis is the prime example of why good intentions don’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea",
">\n\nThere is a form of food stamps everywhere minus 26 countries. Yes I do agree.",
">\n\nSo you want to take a relatively simple system (relatively speaking) and replace it with a more complicated, more costly, confusing system. All just to cover more people. \nThis is a shitty idea for so many reasons. The two biggest would be: 1) Cost: you are making a program much more expensive than it needs to be. The most significant costs will be in the IRS to enforce this program, since you have now effectively put it in their jurisdiction. You may not realize this, but that is the result. This will also disproportionately effect people on the margins, the working poor. These people may not qualify under your proposal, and they didn’t qualify for the old one. Now you’re making their financial lives more complex, and making their tax filings more complex. Again, you may not have thought of this….but is unavoidable. \n 2) You now made a relatively niche program that the majority of taxpayers never give a second thought to, and you’re making it a vital part of everyone’s lives. This would suddenly make it ‘everyone’s issue’. And it will get debated and potentially cut at rates much greater than the current program. \nTrying to cover more people is a cause I agree with. I would be absolutely disgusted if the government did something like what you’re suggesting. It is so economically inefficient, it will end up increasing the projects cost many times. It takes a program that only benefits a minority of people, and makes it everyone’s issue. And all for literally no reason. The amount of bureaucracy required in your plan is just absurd. \nThere are many other reasons that your idea sucks, these are just the two most glaringly troublesome in my eyes.",
">\n\nWhy not simply provide everyone with a universal basic income? There's much less of a likelihood of creating inflation on everyday goods with that approach, and it'd allow each family to be flexible about where they lived and how they spent their money, which would help alleviate the densification of the working population that drives costs up for things like housing.",
">\n\nGreat take an extra 500 dollars from those who do not need assistance and give us back 100 dollars. There is no limit on how much of another persons money the government (and those who support them) is willing to spend.",
">\n\nAlmost all food is already not taxed in most states. SNAP for everyone would discourage people from working as much. People can already live on Ramen noodles for $150 per year and I once bought sixty eggs and a gallon of milk for $60, plus a bag of shredded cheese for a few more dollars. Costco, whose membership is refundable after purchases, sells a 25-lb bag of rice for $18 and a 50-lb bag of rice for $19. Black beans are also very cheap, and people can live on their only nutrients as being from potatoes and butter.",
">\n\nThis would go the extra step of giving tax advantages for every dollar spent on groceries, like HSAs the money being elected by each person would be pre-tax thereby lowering the taxable income. Why should there be tax advantages for investing but not for everyone who eats food that they prepare themselves? Food doesn't have a sales tax, but the money used to buy that food is taxed when it's earned in a paycheck, whether it is payroll tax (social security and Medicare) or for those earning more income tax, this proposal would give the working American hundreds of dollars back in their pockets and it wouldn't be means tested (just like social security and Medicare) meaning everyone benefits.\nThe argument that \"if people have any of their basic needs meet, they become lazy\" just isn't born out in reality. Prison delivers basic needs and most prisoners don't become ostensibly comatose out of sheer slovenly nature of having basic needs met. If you had security that you would not be homeless, starving and left destitute would you tien into a lethargic rhetorical slug? I don't know you but I suspect that the answer is \"no\". Alleviating the possibility of destitution hasn't turned the rest of the wealthy nations of the world into a nation of lazy bums, their people are less likely to die deaths of despair, seek out academic achievement at higher levels, have more free time with friends and family, and all that across 30+ countries that have robust welfare states. Maybe reality is not that there needs to be economic retribution to every individual who is maximally providing their labor to their employers (more often than not, multiple jobs need to be worked for the bottom of the labor market). There's burger flippers in all those other wealthy countries and they don't need to work 2-3 of those low wage jobs, but somehow only the American worker needs to karmically punished and economically tortured because if they didn't the American would somehow be sinfully free to lead his/her life to as they want?\nEveryone eats food, this proposal just makes it easier for everyone by providing relief for the thing everyone will paying for anyway. Why shouldn't it be made easier for everyone's wallet to eat? What moral danger is there to take some of that household expenses off everyone's family budget? If it works out and the public likes joining the rest of the developed nations having a government that provides services and benefits to them and not just the wealthy and well connected, isn't that what a government of the people, by the people, and for the people should be doing anyway?"
] |
>
If you don't consent to taxes feel free to renounce your citizenship and leave
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.",
">\n\nThis is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?",
">\n\nThe people that need this the most likely don't pay any income tax in the first place. Getting an extra tax deduction means nothing at that point. Where it will mean a possible deduction that is useful is the middle class and upper class. The middle class is forced to use it or end up paying more in tax for not playing the game. The upper class has an accountant who will figure the optimal amount for them right off the bat. \nIn order to find the extra benefits, we either need to raise taxes or just crank up the debt even more. I know a lot of people like to ignore the debt but it will come back to bite us at some point. As it is, something like $400 billion in interest is paid in a year. Over the next few years, that could reach into the trillions.",
">\n\nThe people who already qualify for SNAP would still get the level of benefits (which would be above $100/month), the wider and new benefit would be for the middle income who currently buy their groceries with post-tax dollars and would be able to buy groceries with pre-tax dollars lowering their tax liability without changing their behavior.",
">\n\nIf current recipients are going to get the same amount, and the middle and upper classes are going to be the ones getting the benefit under this proposal, you are increasing spending while powering tax revenue. I don't see that being a good idea given the current budget situation.",
">\n\nShow Me Your Budget, And I’ll Show You What You Value\nIf the federal budget needs to be brought in line to reflect the values of the American people that would value life sustaining resources over bombs, then so be it.",
">\n\nIt seems redundant to expect everyone in the country to pay additional taxes to cover their own SNAP benefits. I don’t know cost concerns you’re trying to alleviate. Assume every single person’s taxes increase $100/month so they can get a get a $100 SNAP card? And since it’s universal, the Kardashians, Elon Musk, CEOs, doctors, lawyers… would all get $100 every month? \nThe whole reason that SNAP works is because the population who is better off, helps cover the expenses for those lesser well off. \nThis is the prime example of why good intentions don’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea",
">\n\nThere is a form of food stamps everywhere minus 26 countries. Yes I do agree.",
">\n\nSo you want to take a relatively simple system (relatively speaking) and replace it with a more complicated, more costly, confusing system. All just to cover more people. \nThis is a shitty idea for so many reasons. The two biggest would be: 1) Cost: you are making a program much more expensive than it needs to be. The most significant costs will be in the IRS to enforce this program, since you have now effectively put it in their jurisdiction. You may not realize this, but that is the result. This will also disproportionately effect people on the margins, the working poor. These people may not qualify under your proposal, and they didn’t qualify for the old one. Now you’re making their financial lives more complex, and making their tax filings more complex. Again, you may not have thought of this….but is unavoidable. \n 2) You now made a relatively niche program that the majority of taxpayers never give a second thought to, and you’re making it a vital part of everyone’s lives. This would suddenly make it ‘everyone’s issue’. And it will get debated and potentially cut at rates much greater than the current program. \nTrying to cover more people is a cause I agree with. I would be absolutely disgusted if the government did something like what you’re suggesting. It is so economically inefficient, it will end up increasing the projects cost many times. It takes a program that only benefits a minority of people, and makes it everyone’s issue. And all for literally no reason. The amount of bureaucracy required in your plan is just absurd. \nThere are many other reasons that your idea sucks, these are just the two most glaringly troublesome in my eyes.",
">\n\nWhy not simply provide everyone with a universal basic income? There's much less of a likelihood of creating inflation on everyday goods with that approach, and it'd allow each family to be flexible about where they lived and how they spent their money, which would help alleviate the densification of the working population that drives costs up for things like housing.",
">\n\nGreat take an extra 500 dollars from those who do not need assistance and give us back 100 dollars. There is no limit on how much of another persons money the government (and those who support them) is willing to spend.",
">\n\nAlmost all food is already not taxed in most states. SNAP for everyone would discourage people from working as much. People can already live on Ramen noodles for $150 per year and I once bought sixty eggs and a gallon of milk for $60, plus a bag of shredded cheese for a few more dollars. Costco, whose membership is refundable after purchases, sells a 25-lb bag of rice for $18 and a 50-lb bag of rice for $19. Black beans are also very cheap, and people can live on their only nutrients as being from potatoes and butter.",
">\n\nThis would go the extra step of giving tax advantages for every dollar spent on groceries, like HSAs the money being elected by each person would be pre-tax thereby lowering the taxable income. Why should there be tax advantages for investing but not for everyone who eats food that they prepare themselves? Food doesn't have a sales tax, but the money used to buy that food is taxed when it's earned in a paycheck, whether it is payroll tax (social security and Medicare) or for those earning more income tax, this proposal would give the working American hundreds of dollars back in their pockets and it wouldn't be means tested (just like social security and Medicare) meaning everyone benefits.\nThe argument that \"if people have any of their basic needs meet, they become lazy\" just isn't born out in reality. Prison delivers basic needs and most prisoners don't become ostensibly comatose out of sheer slovenly nature of having basic needs met. If you had security that you would not be homeless, starving and left destitute would you tien into a lethargic rhetorical slug? I don't know you but I suspect that the answer is \"no\". Alleviating the possibility of destitution hasn't turned the rest of the wealthy nations of the world into a nation of lazy bums, their people are less likely to die deaths of despair, seek out academic achievement at higher levels, have more free time with friends and family, and all that across 30+ countries that have robust welfare states. Maybe reality is not that there needs to be economic retribution to every individual who is maximally providing their labor to their employers (more often than not, multiple jobs need to be worked for the bottom of the labor market). There's burger flippers in all those other wealthy countries and they don't need to work 2-3 of those low wage jobs, but somehow only the American worker needs to karmically punished and economically tortured because if they didn't the American would somehow be sinfully free to lead his/her life to as they want?\nEveryone eats food, this proposal just makes it easier for everyone by providing relief for the thing everyone will paying for anyway. Why shouldn't it be made easier for everyone's wallet to eat? What moral danger is there to take some of that household expenses off everyone's family budget? If it works out and the public likes joining the rest of the developed nations having a government that provides services and benefits to them and not just the wealthy and well connected, isn't that what a government of the people, by the people, and for the people should be doing anyway?",
">\n\nAre you going to fund this, or are you going to demand others have their money stolen to fund it?"
] |
>
We shouldn't have to NEED SNAP that's the problem
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.",
">\n\nThis is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?",
">\n\nThe people that need this the most likely don't pay any income tax in the first place. Getting an extra tax deduction means nothing at that point. Where it will mean a possible deduction that is useful is the middle class and upper class. The middle class is forced to use it or end up paying more in tax for not playing the game. The upper class has an accountant who will figure the optimal amount for them right off the bat. \nIn order to find the extra benefits, we either need to raise taxes or just crank up the debt even more. I know a lot of people like to ignore the debt but it will come back to bite us at some point. As it is, something like $400 billion in interest is paid in a year. Over the next few years, that could reach into the trillions.",
">\n\nThe people who already qualify for SNAP would still get the level of benefits (which would be above $100/month), the wider and new benefit would be for the middle income who currently buy their groceries with post-tax dollars and would be able to buy groceries with pre-tax dollars lowering their tax liability without changing their behavior.",
">\n\nIf current recipients are going to get the same amount, and the middle and upper classes are going to be the ones getting the benefit under this proposal, you are increasing spending while powering tax revenue. I don't see that being a good idea given the current budget situation.",
">\n\nShow Me Your Budget, And I’ll Show You What You Value\nIf the federal budget needs to be brought in line to reflect the values of the American people that would value life sustaining resources over bombs, then so be it.",
">\n\nIt seems redundant to expect everyone in the country to pay additional taxes to cover their own SNAP benefits. I don’t know cost concerns you’re trying to alleviate. Assume every single person’s taxes increase $100/month so they can get a get a $100 SNAP card? And since it’s universal, the Kardashians, Elon Musk, CEOs, doctors, lawyers… would all get $100 every month? \nThe whole reason that SNAP works is because the population who is better off, helps cover the expenses for those lesser well off. \nThis is the prime example of why good intentions don’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea",
">\n\nThere is a form of food stamps everywhere minus 26 countries. Yes I do agree.",
">\n\nSo you want to take a relatively simple system (relatively speaking) and replace it with a more complicated, more costly, confusing system. All just to cover more people. \nThis is a shitty idea for so many reasons. The two biggest would be: 1) Cost: you are making a program much more expensive than it needs to be. The most significant costs will be in the IRS to enforce this program, since you have now effectively put it in their jurisdiction. You may not realize this, but that is the result. This will also disproportionately effect people on the margins, the working poor. These people may not qualify under your proposal, and they didn’t qualify for the old one. Now you’re making their financial lives more complex, and making their tax filings more complex. Again, you may not have thought of this….but is unavoidable. \n 2) You now made a relatively niche program that the majority of taxpayers never give a second thought to, and you’re making it a vital part of everyone’s lives. This would suddenly make it ‘everyone’s issue’. And it will get debated and potentially cut at rates much greater than the current program. \nTrying to cover more people is a cause I agree with. I would be absolutely disgusted if the government did something like what you’re suggesting. It is so economically inefficient, it will end up increasing the projects cost many times. It takes a program that only benefits a minority of people, and makes it everyone’s issue. And all for literally no reason. The amount of bureaucracy required in your plan is just absurd. \nThere are many other reasons that your idea sucks, these are just the two most glaringly troublesome in my eyes.",
">\n\nWhy not simply provide everyone with a universal basic income? There's much less of a likelihood of creating inflation on everyday goods with that approach, and it'd allow each family to be flexible about where they lived and how they spent their money, which would help alleviate the densification of the working population that drives costs up for things like housing.",
">\n\nGreat take an extra 500 dollars from those who do not need assistance and give us back 100 dollars. There is no limit on how much of another persons money the government (and those who support them) is willing to spend.",
">\n\nAlmost all food is already not taxed in most states. SNAP for everyone would discourage people from working as much. People can already live on Ramen noodles for $150 per year and I once bought sixty eggs and a gallon of milk for $60, plus a bag of shredded cheese for a few more dollars. Costco, whose membership is refundable after purchases, sells a 25-lb bag of rice for $18 and a 50-lb bag of rice for $19. Black beans are also very cheap, and people can live on their only nutrients as being from potatoes and butter.",
">\n\nThis would go the extra step of giving tax advantages for every dollar spent on groceries, like HSAs the money being elected by each person would be pre-tax thereby lowering the taxable income. Why should there be tax advantages for investing but not for everyone who eats food that they prepare themselves? Food doesn't have a sales tax, but the money used to buy that food is taxed when it's earned in a paycheck, whether it is payroll tax (social security and Medicare) or for those earning more income tax, this proposal would give the working American hundreds of dollars back in their pockets and it wouldn't be means tested (just like social security and Medicare) meaning everyone benefits.\nThe argument that \"if people have any of their basic needs meet, they become lazy\" just isn't born out in reality. Prison delivers basic needs and most prisoners don't become ostensibly comatose out of sheer slovenly nature of having basic needs met. If you had security that you would not be homeless, starving and left destitute would you tien into a lethargic rhetorical slug? I don't know you but I suspect that the answer is \"no\". Alleviating the possibility of destitution hasn't turned the rest of the wealthy nations of the world into a nation of lazy bums, their people are less likely to die deaths of despair, seek out academic achievement at higher levels, have more free time with friends and family, and all that across 30+ countries that have robust welfare states. Maybe reality is not that there needs to be economic retribution to every individual who is maximally providing their labor to their employers (more often than not, multiple jobs need to be worked for the bottom of the labor market). There's burger flippers in all those other wealthy countries and they don't need to work 2-3 of those low wage jobs, but somehow only the American worker needs to karmically punished and economically tortured because if they didn't the American would somehow be sinfully free to lead his/her life to as they want?\nEveryone eats food, this proposal just makes it easier for everyone by providing relief for the thing everyone will paying for anyway. Why shouldn't it be made easier for everyone's wallet to eat? What moral danger is there to take some of that household expenses off everyone's family budget? If it works out and the public likes joining the rest of the developed nations having a government that provides services and benefits to them and not just the wealthy and well connected, isn't that what a government of the people, by the people, and for the people should be doing anyway?",
">\n\nAre you going to fund this, or are you going to demand others have their money stolen to fund it?",
">\n\nIf you don't consent to taxes feel free to renounce your citizenship and leave"
] |
>
We don't need snap.
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.",
">\n\nThis is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?",
">\n\nThe people that need this the most likely don't pay any income tax in the first place. Getting an extra tax deduction means nothing at that point. Where it will mean a possible deduction that is useful is the middle class and upper class. The middle class is forced to use it or end up paying more in tax for not playing the game. The upper class has an accountant who will figure the optimal amount for them right off the bat. \nIn order to find the extra benefits, we either need to raise taxes or just crank up the debt even more. I know a lot of people like to ignore the debt but it will come back to bite us at some point. As it is, something like $400 billion in interest is paid in a year. Over the next few years, that could reach into the trillions.",
">\n\nThe people who already qualify for SNAP would still get the level of benefits (which would be above $100/month), the wider and new benefit would be for the middle income who currently buy their groceries with post-tax dollars and would be able to buy groceries with pre-tax dollars lowering their tax liability without changing their behavior.",
">\n\nIf current recipients are going to get the same amount, and the middle and upper classes are going to be the ones getting the benefit under this proposal, you are increasing spending while powering tax revenue. I don't see that being a good idea given the current budget situation.",
">\n\nShow Me Your Budget, And I’ll Show You What You Value\nIf the federal budget needs to be brought in line to reflect the values of the American people that would value life sustaining resources over bombs, then so be it.",
">\n\nIt seems redundant to expect everyone in the country to pay additional taxes to cover their own SNAP benefits. I don’t know cost concerns you’re trying to alleviate. Assume every single person’s taxes increase $100/month so they can get a get a $100 SNAP card? And since it’s universal, the Kardashians, Elon Musk, CEOs, doctors, lawyers… would all get $100 every month? \nThe whole reason that SNAP works is because the population who is better off, helps cover the expenses for those lesser well off. \nThis is the prime example of why good intentions don’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea",
">\n\nThere is a form of food stamps everywhere minus 26 countries. Yes I do agree.",
">\n\nSo you want to take a relatively simple system (relatively speaking) and replace it with a more complicated, more costly, confusing system. All just to cover more people. \nThis is a shitty idea for so many reasons. The two biggest would be: 1) Cost: you are making a program much more expensive than it needs to be. The most significant costs will be in the IRS to enforce this program, since you have now effectively put it in their jurisdiction. You may not realize this, but that is the result. This will also disproportionately effect people on the margins, the working poor. These people may not qualify under your proposal, and they didn’t qualify for the old one. Now you’re making their financial lives more complex, and making their tax filings more complex. Again, you may not have thought of this….but is unavoidable. \n 2) You now made a relatively niche program that the majority of taxpayers never give a second thought to, and you’re making it a vital part of everyone’s lives. This would suddenly make it ‘everyone’s issue’. And it will get debated and potentially cut at rates much greater than the current program. \nTrying to cover more people is a cause I agree with. I would be absolutely disgusted if the government did something like what you’re suggesting. It is so economically inefficient, it will end up increasing the projects cost many times. It takes a program that only benefits a minority of people, and makes it everyone’s issue. And all for literally no reason. The amount of bureaucracy required in your plan is just absurd. \nThere are many other reasons that your idea sucks, these are just the two most glaringly troublesome in my eyes.",
">\n\nWhy not simply provide everyone with a universal basic income? There's much less of a likelihood of creating inflation on everyday goods with that approach, and it'd allow each family to be flexible about where they lived and how they spent their money, which would help alleviate the densification of the working population that drives costs up for things like housing.",
">\n\nGreat take an extra 500 dollars from those who do not need assistance and give us back 100 dollars. There is no limit on how much of another persons money the government (and those who support them) is willing to spend.",
">\n\nAlmost all food is already not taxed in most states. SNAP for everyone would discourage people from working as much. People can already live on Ramen noodles for $150 per year and I once bought sixty eggs and a gallon of milk for $60, plus a bag of shredded cheese for a few more dollars. Costco, whose membership is refundable after purchases, sells a 25-lb bag of rice for $18 and a 50-lb bag of rice for $19. Black beans are also very cheap, and people can live on their only nutrients as being from potatoes and butter.",
">\n\nThis would go the extra step of giving tax advantages for every dollar spent on groceries, like HSAs the money being elected by each person would be pre-tax thereby lowering the taxable income. Why should there be tax advantages for investing but not for everyone who eats food that they prepare themselves? Food doesn't have a sales tax, but the money used to buy that food is taxed when it's earned in a paycheck, whether it is payroll tax (social security and Medicare) or for those earning more income tax, this proposal would give the working American hundreds of dollars back in their pockets and it wouldn't be means tested (just like social security and Medicare) meaning everyone benefits.\nThe argument that \"if people have any of their basic needs meet, they become lazy\" just isn't born out in reality. Prison delivers basic needs and most prisoners don't become ostensibly comatose out of sheer slovenly nature of having basic needs met. If you had security that you would not be homeless, starving and left destitute would you tien into a lethargic rhetorical slug? I don't know you but I suspect that the answer is \"no\". Alleviating the possibility of destitution hasn't turned the rest of the wealthy nations of the world into a nation of lazy bums, their people are less likely to die deaths of despair, seek out academic achievement at higher levels, have more free time with friends and family, and all that across 30+ countries that have robust welfare states. Maybe reality is not that there needs to be economic retribution to every individual who is maximally providing their labor to their employers (more often than not, multiple jobs need to be worked for the bottom of the labor market). There's burger flippers in all those other wealthy countries and they don't need to work 2-3 of those low wage jobs, but somehow only the American worker needs to karmically punished and economically tortured because if they didn't the American would somehow be sinfully free to lead his/her life to as they want?\nEveryone eats food, this proposal just makes it easier for everyone by providing relief for the thing everyone will paying for anyway. Why shouldn't it be made easier for everyone's wallet to eat? What moral danger is there to take some of that household expenses off everyone's family budget? If it works out and the public likes joining the rest of the developed nations having a government that provides services and benefits to them and not just the wealthy and well connected, isn't that what a government of the people, by the people, and for the people should be doing anyway?",
">\n\nAre you going to fund this, or are you going to demand others have their money stolen to fund it?",
">\n\nIf you don't consent to taxes feel free to renounce your citizenship and leave",
">\n\nWe shouldn't have to NEED SNAP that's the problem"
] |
>
Who's we you got a turd in your pocket?
|
[
"/u/SeanFromQueens (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIt adds a new headache to me grocery shopping to figure out what is or is not SNAP eligible and pay for groceries with two separate funding sources instead of just handing over my Visa card. \nQuite a bit of money would be lost in the new bureaucracy. How many government bureaucrats are we going to have to pay to effectively take our money and then give it back to us?\nIf someone would rather go hungry than use a SNAP card that's available to them, why is that my problem? We're already doing our duty by offering them the benefits.\nAssuming you're going to buy groceries no matter what, groceries are effectively not taxed already because you can take a standard tax deduction of $13,850 (I'm not especially frugal and even with current inflation I spend a lot less than that on groceries) and in my state there are no sales taxes on basic groceries.",
">\n\n\nthat it being universal would also eliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits because no one would know whether you qualify for additional SNAP benefits or you are just using it as a Health Savings Account (HSA)but for your groceries and decreasing your tax liabilities.\n\n\nI see your point in trying to remove the stigma by making it universal, but people would still very much be aware that some people receive more benefits than others (i.e. the benefits are not really universal and are still means-tested to some extent) so it definitely would not eliminate the stigma, even if it does reduce the stigma.\nThis proposal disproportionately benefits people who spend more money on food (i.e. people with higher incomes/wealth). Let's say you're a middle income person and I've got a nice hefty salary. Sure you won't pay taxes on that $5 you spend on ground beef you'll eat for dinner, but I won't pay taxes on the $150 I spend on my dry aged steak and lobster I'll eat for dinner. You won't pay taxes on the $4 bag of chips you're eating with your burger, I won't pay taxes on the $200 in truffles I'm going to put on my baked potato I'm having with my steak and lobster. Further, you're saving money in your highest tax bracket, which is much lower than my tax bracket. Do you find this outcome acceptable? Why?",
">\n\nLower income people spend a much larger percentage of their paycheck on food than higher income people do.",
">\n\nYes they do, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you explain?",
">\n\nA wealthier person getting 7% of their spending tax free (35-37%) benefits less than a poorer person getting 30% of their spending tax free (10-15%)\nSo it's slightly progressive, not regressive. More so if you add the deposits and if you don't count restaurants or food purchased abroad.",
">\n\nIt's a huge expense for the federal government that disproportionately benefits those with higher incomes. Hey poor people, here's a couple hundred dollars over the course of the year! I know it's not much and that people who don't need a tax cut are saving 10+ times more than you, but as a percentage of your household income it's a greater savings than theirs so yay! \nNot buying it. But more to the point reducing taxes for high income folks isn't furthering OP's stated goal for the proposal:\n\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans, the goal is not what I'm open to changing but that this proposal is the best means to achieve said goal.",
">\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people. And is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes, which disproportionately fall on people with higher incomes.",
">\n\n\nYou mean disproportionately benefits lower income people.\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\nDisproportionate: too small or too large in comparison with something else.\nIn my view, the actual dollars saved by high income folks is disproportionate. In your view the percentage of income tax saved by low income folks is disproportionate. \nWe can both use the word correctly and come to different conclusions :) \n\nAnd is presumably offset by an increase in income taxes,\n\nOP didn't stipulate how this would be paid for.",
">\n\n\nNope, I mean disproportionately benefits higher income people, but thanks.\n\nThen you're simply incorrect. The previous commenter has it right. \nTo your analogy, a flat tax like sales tax is practically regressive because the loss in marginal utility weighs heavier on poorer people. On the other side, flat subsidies for foodstuffs are progressive for the same reason, poorer people extract more net marginal utility from it than wealthier people.",
">\n\nAs a middle class person, this system just sounds annoying to me. I'd much rather just have the $1200 a year and have the government subsidize food than have to manage a separate SNAP card and have to deposit income into my SNAP account.",
">\n\nManage a seperate card is too much of a burden? I've got two credit cards, two debit cards, personally adding a 5th card would not be much of a bother for me, but that's just me. Most mass transit have there own payment service that one could use with their phone, I would expect that this would behave in a similar manner where your SNAP account is either another plastic card or a just another account on your Apple/Google pay wallet. \nGovernment subsidizing food being handed out to the food producers hasn't worked out for farmers or the consumer just the multinational agribusinesses like ADM and Conagra, though this doesn't address this specific problem it doesn't exasperate the problem either.",
">\n\nIt makes regular income people feel like poor people to have an extra card with a negligible amount of money in it. It’s annoying, like the other person said",
">\n\nI've had transitchek card for monthly subway fares. I currently have a HSA for health care costs. Having the similar tax benefits but for groceries, it would be as much money as you elect it to be, or just forgo it altogether and pay groceries with post-tax dollars as you go now. You are free to do you boo.",
">\n\nAn HSA card and a subway card are not like credit/debit cards. Also most people in the country do not have subway cards. I don’t know what the percentage is on HSA card, but I bet it’s not as high as you seem to think. The fact is that most people use one debit card for their everyday transactions. Full stop. Adding anything to that, is going to piss people off royally. If there’s not enough money on the card, which will happen all the time, people will need to use two means of payment. Yet another way to piss people off. \nThe additional card is hardly one of my top concerns with your proposal, but it would be one of the things that royally pisses people off.",
">\n\nI think I see the goal here pretty clearly:\n\nIt is my view that this would be an efficient means to alleviate cost concerns for Americans trying to put food on the table\nThe goal of the proposal is to assure Americans getting fed healthy food is easier for all Americans\n\nThe poor pay essentially nothing in taxes. When you give them government aid, they are really getting aid. They get more out of the system then they put into. That makes sense to me, we should give aid to people who need it for lots of reasons ethical and pragmatic.\nWhen the government gives money to the middle class, it doesn't have the same effect. The middle class pays the taxes that create the funds that the government distributes.\nYour police will cost 400 billion dollars, and it will be paid by the tax payer. What sense do it make to raise my taxes by 1200 dollars so that you can turn around and give me 1200 dollars in snap benefits? You are certainly not making it easier for me to buy food. \nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\nIf you want to make it easier for people to buy food there is another method. The government can, and does, pay farmers to grow food. These are called farming subsidies. This has a couple of effects. The main one is that is allows American farmers to compete with international farmers. We don't want the agriculture industry to collapse the same why our textile industry did. Domestic food production is a national security issue. But it also has the effect of making food cheaper. You artificially increase the supply which drives prices down. you could play around with this in all sorts of ways. you could cut subsidies on meat, which is very calorie inefficient and increase subsidies on healthy food like beans, rice. Or you could just increase subsidies across the board. You could artificially prop up smaller farms or farms growing more diverse strains of food or do the opposite. You could reward long term investments like fruit and nut trees which don't yield anything for the first 5 or 10 years. You could reward leaving fields fallow. You have a lot of options.\nusing subsidies to drive sustainable and long term food production, I think will do a lot more to accomplish your goal then just taking and returning 1200 dollars to many Americans or redistributing wealth through taxes.",
">\n\n\nof course you could also shift around the tax burden. you could raise taxes only on the 1%. But then what do you need this snap program from? Just cut my taxes. there is no sense in taking my money just to give it back to me. Give money to people who need it.\n\nShifting the tax burden up the economic ladder is a goal of this reform, the universal SNAP benefits could be less but what is most important is the ability for middle income tax payers to use pre-tax dollars to buy their groceries, which creates a negative rate consumption tax that proportionally benefits those who spending a greater percentage of their money on groceries than those who are earning a higher income and could not practically spend as much on groceries. Even if the high income individual spends far more than the middle income individual, it will still be a smaller percentage of their income.",
">\n\nAs a proponent for Universal Basic Income i feel like this proposal is very similar but more complicated and unnessecary restricted. Why not just give everyone money?",
">\n\nIt's an entry level UBI program, and not any more complicated than means tested EBT, actually it's more efficient with economy of scale. If it is started out with the limited scope of groceries there's no argument of \"well that will cause people to waste it on booze/drugs\" and limit the initial universal benefits to something that is universal like food. The next step could be direct cash transfers.",
">\n\nGiven that almost every person will spend more than $100 on food in a given month, your proposal is very similar to a small basic income plan. I am in general more in favor of straight cash rather than money that comes with strings, it reduces the cost of administration of a program, and it provides people with freedom of choice on how they spend. Maybe someone works at a resort where the get board as part of their compensation. Maybe someone is in a nursing home and doesn’t cook. Those people could, I’m sure, still find a way to spend $100 a month in allowed items, but why not let them spend on what’s important to them?",
">\n\nThe small scale of the transfer is a feature not a bug to the proposal, rather than striving for a full basic income system, assisting with food purchases for everyone. This could be expanded afterwards to be a straight cash transfer, but it is easier defended to have food benefit be universal since everyone needs food.",
">\n\nWhy do this instead of a cash UBI?",
">\n\nIt's an intermediary step that is both smaller than what it would take to deliver basic income. Assisting with food costs and allow tax payers to take advantage of lowering tax liability on purchases that are inevitable to be bought anyway.",
">\n\n\neliminate the stigma of using SNAP benefits\n\nHow much of a sigma is there? I used SNAP for a couple of years and never experienced any stigma. I often notice people using an EBT card at supermarkets, but can't remember it ever being an issue for anyone.\nIf there is a problem with sigma, wouldn't a better solution be to make the card look like an unrecognizable debit card?",
">\n\nYou’ve never experienced the stigma? Gawd, I’m jealous!\nI had gotten pretty good at hiding my card as I was swiping so people wouldn’t see it - but with the introduction of card chips, the fact that I’m using a SNAP card is once again obvious to the holier-than-thou pearl-clutchers around me. The ones who feel they absolutely must comment on the food I’m buying. If it’s healthy, they say “It must be nice buying all that with MY money. You eat better than I do.” If it’s all store brands and ramen noodles, they say “I can’t believe you’re buying junk food with MY tax dollars!” If they can’t find anything about my food to complain about, then it’s my clothes or my phone or my tattoo… never mind that I got my clothes at a thrift store, or my phone on a payment plan, or my tattoo when I was 18 and no responsibilities. \nThis is why I preferred grocery shopping at 2am, when the stores were practically empty. Covid ruined that.",
">\n\nFrom what you’re saying, I think the chip dip problem is that the card processor requires stores to invest in the tech. Small shops for example. The only benefit is to the processor, because chips have less fraud. Without any evidence I’d imagine small shop lobby groups (or grocers, etc.) don’t want every EBT user that buys cheap cheese to suddenly require upgraded equipment to remain EBT-compliant and thus have access to EBT money. The corner bodega and their lobbyists wouldn’t encourage a chip card because it’s not to their benefit. Then again, the stigma in a bodega or similar probably doesn’t exist because that’s where a lot of poorer customers shop, not a big supermarket with “regular” chip users and a big company behind it with negotiating power with credit processors.",
">\n\nAll this would do, is raise the prices of all the cheapest stuff, negatively impacting the people you want to help. It also taxes the business the poor person is working for more, reducing their pay.",
">\n\nWhat evidence do you have that it would raise prices?",
">\n\nEverything the government has ever subsidized?\nGovernment loans drove up the price of college. Mandates that employers provide health insurance has driven up the price of health care.\nAny time you give people money to spend on something without adding to the supply of that thing, more money chasing the same amount of goods necessarily means price increases.\nNow, since money is fungible, lots of people would take their universal SNAP benefits and replace part of their existing food budget with it, but that just means they're going to have more money to spend in other parts of the economy, so while I'd expect the price increases to be concentrated in food markets, it would probably cause inflation across the economy.",
">\n\nThe relationship between employer healthcare costs and healthcare costs is inverse. As healthcare costs increase fewer employers take on the burden, and shift to less risk, and less expensive coverage. Even as the economy improves, employers cannot keep up the burden of sponsoring employee plans, so they don’t. They don’t hire, or they use FSAs, or they work with unions, something else but not cause costs to rise merely by requiring coverage.",
">\n\nThat's definitely a better policy then what we have now, but if you were going to do that you should just go ahead and give people cash directly to spend however they want.\nFor poor people in actual need, food is important, but often some other emergency is more critical; a car repair that keeps you from losing your job, a doctor visit that treats a problem early before it develops into a life-long condition.\nAnd for everyone else, giving coupons that can only be spent on a few things distorts the market, in ways that just make it less efficient and less useful for everyone. For example, if you gave everyone $50/month that can only be spent on eggs, the price of eggs would go up a ton until supply and demand equalized again. \nEfficient markets are fueled by people freely spending how they want, so if you want to subsidize them just give them cash directly.\nThe restrictions on SNAP benefits are mostly there to reassure voters that poor people aren't being allowed to be happy, just being allowed to survive; they're a means to discipline the labor force by making poverty worse to endure. They don't serve any good, pro-social function, really.",
">\n\nI think your comment has shown the actual reason why SNAP is for specific things. The purpose of the program is to reduce hunger, but as you have said - if it wasn’t limited to food necessities then poor people would spend it on other things and go hungry.\nIt’s not about wanting them to not be happy - it’s about making sure they eat well.",
">\n\nFood is sort of an inflexible expense. A person expecting to enjoy other goods and services will need food to actually enjoy them at some point. Politically it’s easy to imagine someone will spend $99 on whiskey and go hungry. But that’s not really reality, right. They may have a different basket of goods at the end of the day, but there will be food in the basket. Like alcohol. For things we really worry about — like addictive drugs — that’s for social programs and enforcement paid by taxes to address most effectively, not restricting dollars to food. We wouldn’t say the war on drugs demands restricting food aid: the war on drugs demands attacking addiction and the substances and suppliers themselves.",
">\n\nThe comment I replied to said that poor people would spend money on vehicles or rent instead of food. While those are important things, they are not food and snap focuses on food insecurity not general poverty.\nEdit to add: my social worker husband disagrees with you on the drugs - unrestricted cash could cause a huge problem for his clients.",
">\n\nSo you're going to raise everyone's taxes by $100 to give them $100 in food stamps?\nIt's not hard to get healthy food: people who aren't eating healthy don't want to. People claim it's a price issue, but the fact is that fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Bananas are like 25 cents each, but people would rather buy a bag of chips. Water is basically free, put people pay for soda.",
">\n\nProbably more like raising everyone's taxes by $110 to give them $100, once you account for the government waste and bureaucracy in the program.",
">\n\nIf everyone gets it automatically and there is no need to review any applications, wouldn't that cut down on the administrative costs?",
">\n\nQuestion, do you believe the underlying problem is related to income/wealth inequality? America is the richest nation per capita but struggle to live happy, healthy lives. \nIf you improved how the wealth of the nation is distributed, do you think it would fix the problem?",
">\n\nAmericans have the highest disposal income of any country in the world. Yes. More than Europeans. We just spend it like idiots.\nThe issue isn't wealth inequality, Its the lack of economic education in school. In US schools you dont ever take a single economics course. I was one of about twelve students in a school of 1200 that took an economics course. And even then, that was more just about how global economies function. There are absolutely 0 Classes that american students take on proper budgeting. This means that many americans, despite having more disposible income than their european counterparts still struggle since they blow their money pointlessly.",
">\n\nTo confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.",
">\n\n\\~100 people in the US die of starvation every year with the vast majority being people with mental illness who cannot support themselves or neglected children. People aren't starving. The problem is that we talk about poor food quality issues.\nThe issue here comes primarily from 2 places.\n1.) Time. Eating healthy, Or at a minimum, Not like complete shit. Is cheaper than trash eating. You can buy a pack of chicken breasts for the cost of a large Baconator Combo. The issue is the time it takes to cook. These people are either unable or unwilling for a variety of issues to take the 30m to cook a healthy meal.\n2.) Access. When you see places like New York where all they have is tiny little corner stores and you have to travel basically out of the city to find a proper grocery store. That is a problem. You can either eat the trash from the Bodega, or travel 30m to get to a proper Albertsons (or whatever they have in NY).\n\nThis is why Poverty in the US isn't represented by starved thin people, its Obesity. They are getting plenty of calories and are eating plenty of food. Its just the food quality isnt there.\n\nEDIT: Also something to remember. Many, If not the majority of low income earners smoke. And if they are a pack a day smoker, that is \\~$15USD per day for their habit. THAT IS A FULL MEAL! They are addicted to a substance that drains a full meal worth of income from them per day. Imagine what eating 4 meals a day would do you your budget. And that is per person. If your partner smokes as well that is 2 Meals per day of household income just thrown away. And many people are 2-3 pack a day smokes. Meaning they can be spending up to 3 meals a day worth of income on an addiction. Clearly, Money isnt the issue.",
">\n\nYou are talking about something different than OP. \n\ntrying to put food on the table\n\nI'm sure people would cook more healthy and varied meals if they had more income. You identify the issue yourself, insufficient time off to spend it finding healthy foods, living in places with basic kitchens and eating nutritional food. \nI have no idea why you were saying education is the actual problem. I also don't know why you are banging on about smoking. It's going not to do with the point. \nYou really got to identify the point your making and be concise. \nYour anecdotal opinions about what poor people aren't/are doing isn't convincing, it's just story telling.",
">\n\n\"To confirm, people starve despite having more then enough money to buy all the food they want? Doubt.\"\nNice redirection. I responded to your comment. Not OP. YOU said people were starving. That is why I refuted it.",
">\n\n\nI responded to your comment. Not OP.\n\nMaybe respond to OP and not to me, I dont have a view here.",
">\n\ni guess i'm struggling to see the benefit of it, i get that you get a tax break but you're also paying money off of your paycheck to pay for something that most people already get. so its kinda a wash \nthe problem with food stamps i think is that its for people who are on the fringes by definition, who are also shamed into being very quiet about their usage of it. so when people hear about people abusing them, they don't have a frame of reference for people actually using them like they're supposed to \nso i think either this just needs to be simpler and even more universal, or just tweak the current system a little more so people see more use out of it",
">\n\nIt's like a Health Savings Account, but for groceries. A household will spend x dollars on groceries every year, but under this plan the x dollars would be pre-tax dollars making whatever is spent on groceries a decrease in the household taxable income (both income tax and the payroll taxes like social security and Medicare). In another way, it is treating what a household needs to spend money on as a operating cost when a business is taxed. For businesses operating expenses are not counted as taxable income, for a typical household health care expenses can be uaed lower taxable income as a necessary expense, but not groceries - this would change that.",
">\n\nThis is too wonkish and misses the root of the problem. Why are there people who don't have enough to eat? Why is there so much poverty in the first place?",
">\n\nThe people that need this the most likely don't pay any income tax in the first place. Getting an extra tax deduction means nothing at that point. Where it will mean a possible deduction that is useful is the middle class and upper class. The middle class is forced to use it or end up paying more in tax for not playing the game. The upper class has an accountant who will figure the optimal amount for them right off the bat. \nIn order to find the extra benefits, we either need to raise taxes or just crank up the debt even more. I know a lot of people like to ignore the debt but it will come back to bite us at some point. As it is, something like $400 billion in interest is paid in a year. Over the next few years, that could reach into the trillions.",
">\n\nThe people who already qualify for SNAP would still get the level of benefits (which would be above $100/month), the wider and new benefit would be for the middle income who currently buy their groceries with post-tax dollars and would be able to buy groceries with pre-tax dollars lowering their tax liability without changing their behavior.",
">\n\nIf current recipients are going to get the same amount, and the middle and upper classes are going to be the ones getting the benefit under this proposal, you are increasing spending while powering tax revenue. I don't see that being a good idea given the current budget situation.",
">\n\nShow Me Your Budget, And I’ll Show You What You Value\nIf the federal budget needs to be brought in line to reflect the values of the American people that would value life sustaining resources over bombs, then so be it.",
">\n\nIt seems redundant to expect everyone in the country to pay additional taxes to cover their own SNAP benefits. I don’t know cost concerns you’re trying to alleviate. Assume every single person’s taxes increase $100/month so they can get a get a $100 SNAP card? And since it’s universal, the Kardashians, Elon Musk, CEOs, doctors, lawyers… would all get $100 every month? \nThe whole reason that SNAP works is because the population who is better off, helps cover the expenses for those lesser well off. \nThis is the prime example of why good intentions don’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea",
">\n\nThere is a form of food stamps everywhere minus 26 countries. Yes I do agree.",
">\n\nSo you want to take a relatively simple system (relatively speaking) and replace it with a more complicated, more costly, confusing system. All just to cover more people. \nThis is a shitty idea for so many reasons. The two biggest would be: 1) Cost: you are making a program much more expensive than it needs to be. The most significant costs will be in the IRS to enforce this program, since you have now effectively put it in their jurisdiction. You may not realize this, but that is the result. This will also disproportionately effect people on the margins, the working poor. These people may not qualify under your proposal, and they didn’t qualify for the old one. Now you’re making their financial lives more complex, and making their tax filings more complex. Again, you may not have thought of this….but is unavoidable. \n 2) You now made a relatively niche program that the majority of taxpayers never give a second thought to, and you’re making it a vital part of everyone’s lives. This would suddenly make it ‘everyone’s issue’. And it will get debated and potentially cut at rates much greater than the current program. \nTrying to cover more people is a cause I agree with. I would be absolutely disgusted if the government did something like what you’re suggesting. It is so economically inefficient, it will end up increasing the projects cost many times. It takes a program that only benefits a minority of people, and makes it everyone’s issue. And all for literally no reason. The amount of bureaucracy required in your plan is just absurd. \nThere are many other reasons that your idea sucks, these are just the two most glaringly troublesome in my eyes.",
">\n\nWhy not simply provide everyone with a universal basic income? There's much less of a likelihood of creating inflation on everyday goods with that approach, and it'd allow each family to be flexible about where they lived and how they spent their money, which would help alleviate the densification of the working population that drives costs up for things like housing.",
">\n\nGreat take an extra 500 dollars from those who do not need assistance and give us back 100 dollars. There is no limit on how much of another persons money the government (and those who support them) is willing to spend.",
">\n\nAlmost all food is already not taxed in most states. SNAP for everyone would discourage people from working as much. People can already live on Ramen noodles for $150 per year and I once bought sixty eggs and a gallon of milk for $60, plus a bag of shredded cheese for a few more dollars. Costco, whose membership is refundable after purchases, sells a 25-lb bag of rice for $18 and a 50-lb bag of rice for $19. Black beans are also very cheap, and people can live on their only nutrients as being from potatoes and butter.",
">\n\nThis would go the extra step of giving tax advantages for every dollar spent on groceries, like HSAs the money being elected by each person would be pre-tax thereby lowering the taxable income. Why should there be tax advantages for investing but not for everyone who eats food that they prepare themselves? Food doesn't have a sales tax, but the money used to buy that food is taxed when it's earned in a paycheck, whether it is payroll tax (social security and Medicare) or for those earning more income tax, this proposal would give the working American hundreds of dollars back in their pockets and it wouldn't be means tested (just like social security and Medicare) meaning everyone benefits.\nThe argument that \"if people have any of their basic needs meet, they become lazy\" just isn't born out in reality. Prison delivers basic needs and most prisoners don't become ostensibly comatose out of sheer slovenly nature of having basic needs met. If you had security that you would not be homeless, starving and left destitute would you tien into a lethargic rhetorical slug? I don't know you but I suspect that the answer is \"no\". Alleviating the possibility of destitution hasn't turned the rest of the wealthy nations of the world into a nation of lazy bums, their people are less likely to die deaths of despair, seek out academic achievement at higher levels, have more free time with friends and family, and all that across 30+ countries that have robust welfare states. Maybe reality is not that there needs to be economic retribution to every individual who is maximally providing their labor to their employers (more often than not, multiple jobs need to be worked for the bottom of the labor market). There's burger flippers in all those other wealthy countries and they don't need to work 2-3 of those low wage jobs, but somehow only the American worker needs to karmically punished and economically tortured because if they didn't the American would somehow be sinfully free to lead his/her life to as they want?\nEveryone eats food, this proposal just makes it easier for everyone by providing relief for the thing everyone will paying for anyway. Why shouldn't it be made easier for everyone's wallet to eat? What moral danger is there to take some of that household expenses off everyone's family budget? If it works out and the public likes joining the rest of the developed nations having a government that provides services and benefits to them and not just the wealthy and well connected, isn't that what a government of the people, by the people, and for the people should be doing anyway?",
">\n\nAre you going to fund this, or are you going to demand others have their money stolen to fund it?",
">\n\nIf you don't consent to taxes feel free to renounce your citizenship and leave",
">\n\nWe shouldn't have to NEED SNAP that's the problem",
">\n\nWe don't need snap."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.