Food Stamps

[Cephus]

Evidence? Everything I have ever read only says there really isn't a problem with an abuse, and the few stories there are of abuse have been falsely reported. And I have to say out of the people I have known that have abused welfare, I've not known any who intentionally have kids just for a bigger check. They're probably out there, but I suspect they are a very slim minority.

If there's no problem then it doesn't matter. It's like the liberals who say that they can't prove that there's a huge problem with people voting illegally, therefore they refuse to put laws in place to stop people from voting illegally. If it's not being done, then it doesn't matter if the laws are there, they don't harm anyone and, if there ever is a problem in the future, we've acted proactively.

We do know there are women on welfare who breed a lot. I can't say for certain what their intentions are, but it really doesn't matter. They have no business breeding when their lifestyle is being paid for by the American taxpayer.

And if she has none when she applies, and is simply unable to get ahead? Should having a family be a privilege reserved for financially secure?

If she has none, then she has no responsibilities toward any children. She does, however, have a responsibility toward the American taxpayer not to increase their financial burden with regard to her. That means if she has none, she continues to have none until she can become self-sufficient.

That is one of the most unaware and uninformed things I have read in awhile. You are going to have to completely overhaul the public education from the ground up if you wanted something like that. Not too mention that would be punishing families who live in poverty, as poverty is closely tied to school performance. And it's not just "personal choices" on the students part, it's the noisy environment, an unstable home-life, drugs and violence being a part of daily living, lack of proper nutrition (which the schools could use alot of improvement in themselves), parental involvement, and more all tie into how well a student will do in school, or if the student even graduates from high school. Such an approach would also not take into account that many gifted students do not make good grades because they are bored with school.

You don't think the American public education system needs to be overhauled? It's an utter disaster. That said though, poverty has little to do with school performance, parental involvement does. Parents who are actively involved in the education of their children, who make sure that their children are going to school, doing their homework and getting good grades are going to produce well-educated children. It's the parents who don't care, who are too busy with their own lives, who aren't interested or active in their children's lives that produce badly-educated kids and that's a problem across all socio-economic lines, not just among the poor. However, we, as a society, have encouraged that kind of behavior through our inaction and we have to turn around and say that's just not acceptable anymore. It's something I wish we could do for everyone regardless of economic status, but so far, not everyone is getting a check from the government (although if the Obama administration has their way, it won't be long until the whole country has their hands out). We really only have an influence over a certain portion of the population and we have to use that influence to change bad behaviors so that we don't spend all of eternity handing over a monthly check to generation after generation.

And of course there is the very big, very real, and sometimes very problematic factor that is that you can't actually make a child do anything.

You can't force them, but a parent who exercises good parenting practices from day one certainly has a huge influence on how children turn out. It's very rare that a child with good parenting turns out bad, invariably you can take a bad kid and go back through their history and find that bad parenting is the source of their problems.

That reminds me of some argument I heard many years ago where someone went babbling on about how these "multi-generationals" teach their children what to say and how to act so they can live for free off the 'gubment. If you look at the issue from an objective standpoint though, you will notice that poverty is something that few people escape. If you were born into poverty, it is very likely you will die in poverty as will your children and their children. If you knew of the struggles many of these people face, you would not be so quickly to coldly judge.

It's because they learn, whether or not they are actively taught this by their parents and their local social group, that's how the world works. There is no active movement to get these people off welfare or to improve the lot of each successive generation so that they eventually are self-sufficient. Some of this is absolutely the government's fault. There was a time when a woman could not get welfare for herself and her children if she had a man living in the house, the assumption being that the man ought to be able to pay for it. That gave rise to rampant illegitimacy in the poor community and today, single-parent households in the poor communities are well above 60%. However, those rules haven't existed in decades, yet the numbers continue to go up, not down. This is something that the poor community has to change, but without some impetus to do so, this will continue to go on and get worse generation after generation. It continues because it can, the government permits it and even encourages it because it produces voters dependent on government largess and therefore more likely to vote for the party that hands out the most cash.

It's a mess no matter how you look at it and ignoring it will not solve the problem.

 

[Cephus]

I hear and completely agree with you. What we have seen over and over again from many on the right is this picking-and-choosing when it comes to their supposed outrage over spending, being very willing to pay for their pet projects, and yet also being so unwilling to help fellow Americans in need in areas whereas only the government is in a position to handle it.

I agree with you, I'm in favor of cutting the military budget by 50% or more, we just don't need it and it will stop us from ******* off half the planet by playing the world's policeman.

I simply do not understand how any person of conscience can literally not be willing to pay a bit more to help those in need, and which religion would tell their followers to do as such? Would Jesus say "Ignore the poor because your money is far more important"?

Nobody has a problem with helping those people legitimately in need, what we have a problem with is paying to help people who are not willing to help themselves. As this becomes a multi-generational problem and people are unable or unwilling to wean themselves off the public teat, there has to be a place where enough is enough. It's one thing for you to give the homeless guy on the corner money for a cheeseburger, it's another for him to get surgically hooked up to your liver so he can drink his life away. There are problems that need to be solved, but far too many people are unwilling to even acknowledge the problems because they're running on pure emotion, not intellect.

I just have a real hard time trying to figure out how so many in the political right has literally been subverting Jewish and Christian teachings, and then doing so in the name of "God". Haven't they ever read Torah, or the Sermon on the Mount or the Parable of the Sheep & Goats in Matthew 25 in the Christian scriptures?

Come on, they, like everyone else, reads their religious books conveniently, they only pay attention to the things that agree with their preconceived beliefs and ignore the parts that don't. There is no theist on the planet that reads their holy book verbatim as written, they all have ways to explain away the parts they don't like.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I don't know. But I do know that they exist. And your neat and tidy "buy 50lb bags of potatoes" doesn't fit the reality of all recipients of food stamps.

Never said it did dude. The question was about the reduction in SNAP funding by congress. My point is that the program can be reduced, people need to learn to shop alittle more wisely and no one will starve to death. Others have chimed in with personal experiences to show this to be possible. This doesn't seem to faze you though.

 

[Cephus]

Never said it did dude. The question was about the reduction in SNAP funding by congress. My point is that the program can be reduced, people need to learn to shop alittle more wisely and no one will starve to death. Others have chimed in with personal experiences to show this to be possible. This doesn't seem to faze you though.

Unfortunately, some people are too emotionally attached to their opinions to ever be swayed by evidence.

 

[metis]

Nobody has a problem with helping those people legitimately in need, what we have a problem with is paying to help people who are not willing to help themselves. As this becomes a multi-generational problem and people are unable or unwilling to wean themselves off the public teat, there has to be a place where enough is enough. It's one thing for you to give the homeless guy on the corner money for a cheeseburger, it's another for him to get surgically hooked up to your liver so he can drink his life away. There are problems that need to be solved, but far too many people are unwilling to even acknowledge the problems because they're running on pure emotion, not intellect.

But to throw out the baby with the bathwater simply isn't a solution, plus it just would make matters far worse for those in need. On top of that, for every dollar spent on food stamps, $1.70 comes back into the economy because of the multiplier effect.

Come on, they, like everyone else, reads their religious books conveniently, they only pay attention to the things that agree with their preconceived beliefs and ignore the parts that don't. There is no theist on the planet that reads their holy book verbatim as written, they all have ways to explain away the parts they don't like.

Which is why I'm a non-theist and why I have never believed in scriptural inerrancy.

 

[Cephus]

But to throw out the baby with the bathwater simply isn't a solution, plus it just would make matters far worse for those in need. On top of that, for every dollar spent on food stamps, $1.70 comes back into the economy because of the multiplier effect.

But that's actually quite a low return on investment compared to other things. Take simple bank deposits, a $100 deposit can result in an overall $500 multiplier effect.

Which is why I'm a non-theist and why I have never believed in scriptural inerrancy.

And that's a good thing, that doesn't change how many theists look at the situation.

 

[Sunstone]

End the 100 billion or so dollars that corporations get in government subsidies each year, and you could more than pay for the cuts in food stamps.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

End the 100 billion or so dollars that corporations get in government subsidies each year, and you could more than pay for the cuts in food stamps.

No kidding! It's easy for the Repub's to establish a wedge-issue between the working class and the poorest of the poor. Sadly, it's working.

 

[metis]

But that's actually quite a low return on investment compared to other things. Take simple bank deposits, a $100 deposit can result in an overall $500 multiplier effect.

The issue isn't how much can be made on investments but the accusation made by someone else that it's wasteful. Also, if the person gets food from some other source than food stamps, we're still dealing with roughly the same equivalent money-wise.

But money is less the issue, imo, than helping those in need. We spend nearly $1 trillion on two crazy wars because 3000 or our people were killed, but we can't spend a small fraction of that on helping our own whereas the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that roughly 45,000 people lose their lives prematurely because they don't have health-care coverage, and that figure doesn't even begin to include the multiples more that are suffering and can't get the help.

So, to me, it's a matter of what are going to be our priorities.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If there's no problem then it doesn't matter. It's like the liberals who say that they can't prove that there's a huge problem with people voting illegally, therefore they refuse to put laws in place to stop people from voting illegally. If it's not being done, then it doesn't matter if the laws are there, they don't harm anyone and, if there ever is a problem in the future, we've acted proactively.

The problem with the voter laws is that they effect groups that largely vote democrat, and many times will not have proper state ID. This is especially common in the southern elderly black population, whose parents many times did not go to a hospital or fill out any of the paper work for a birth because it was just too much of a hassle. College students, who are usually young, just starting their life, and have many things to sort out and focus on, often times vote democrat and do not have an ID. But when asked why do we need these voting laws, the group that says we need less government says it's to protect against voter fraud. When asked where does this voter fraud occur, it turns out that in all reality it is an extremely rare event. If you want to protect the elections, make sure there is never a repeat of 2000. Make sure there are no politically-party affiliated companies maintaining voting machines. Threaten to imprison anyone who wants to do away with a public count.
But requiring ID's disproportionately effects groups that are legal citizens, not committing fraud in anyway, and yet because something that may have been entirely their parent's fault they are told they can't vote.

We do know there are women on welfare who breed a lot. I can't say for certain what their intentions are, but it really doesn't matter. They have no business breeding when their lifestyle is being paid for by the American taxpayer.



If she has none, then she has no responsibilities toward any children. She does, however, have a responsibility toward the American taxpayer not to increase their financial burden with regard to her. That means if she has none, she continues to have none until she can become self-sufficient.

Good to know there are people who actually believe that having a family is a privilege for the privileged. Do you also believe sex is a privilege for the privileged? What a great to also cut back on all those pesky minorities who won't be able to reproduce. You have also apparently not noticed how our culture pressures couples, and especially women, to reproduce.

You don't think the American public education system needs to be overhauled?

I'll just stop there because you apparently didn't read what I wrote very well.

You can't force them, but a parent who exercises good parenting practices from day one certainly has a huge influence on how children turn out. It's very rare that a child with good parenting turns out bad, invariably you can take a bad kid and go back through their history and find that bad parenting is the source of their problems.

You almost make parenting sound easy.

It's because they learn, whether or not they are actively taught this by their parents and their local social group, that's how the world works. There is no active movement to get these people off welfare or to improve the lot of each successive generation so that they eventually are self-sufficient. Some of this is absolutely the government's fault. There was a time when a woman could not get welfare for herself and her children if she had a man living in the house, the assumption being that the man ought to be able to pay for it. That gave rise to rampant illegitimacy in the poor community and today, single-parent households in the poor communities are well above 60%. However, those rules haven't existed in decades, yet the numbers continue to go up, not down. This is something that the poor community has to change, but without some impetus to do so, this will continue to go on and get worse generation after generation. It continues because it can, the government permits it and even encourages it because it produces voters dependent on government largess and therefore more likely to vote for the party that hands out the most cash.

It's a mess no matter how you look at it and ignoring it will not solve the problem.

Do you also actually believe that people on welfare are content living on it and want nothing better? Sure some are that way. I've known a few. But not most. Most people do work hard, try their hardest to get ahead, but for reasons that are outside of their control they cannot.

 

[s2a]

If there's no problem then it doesn't matter. It's like the liberals who say that they can't prove that there's a huge problem with people voting illegally, therefore they refuse to put laws in place to stop people from voting illegally. If it's not being done, then it doesn't matter if the laws are there, they don't harm anyone and, if there ever is a problem in the future, we've acted proactively.

I confess that I am intrigued by this "voter fraud" and alleged ID theft by nefarious folk to utterly subvert the entire voting process.

Could you provide us all with a list of names of those convicted of such fraud, and in which penal institutions they may be found for a greater understanding of their motives?

Does it require more fingers than one hand from which to account? I would lend two more hands for that count if it would help at all...

We do know there are women on welfare who breed a lot. I can't say for certain what their intentions are, but it really doesn't matter. They have no business breeding when their lifestyle is being paid for by the American taxpayer.

Sounds like a ringing endorsement of contraception education and advocacy of a woman's choice re: abortion if I ever heard one!

*applause*

If she has none, then she has no responsibilities toward any children. She does, however, have a responsibility toward the American taxpayer not to increase their financial burden with regard to her. That means if she has none, she continues to have none until she can become self-sufficient.

So... allow me to understand well... the constitutionally guaranteed right afforded by SCOTUS to all women is one you wholeheartedly support?

You don't think the American public education system needs to be overhauled? It's an utter disaster. That said though, poverty has little to do with school performance, parental involvement does.

I'm willing to wager heavily that you never had to take any test the day after no dinner and minimal sleep.

Parents who are actively involved in the education of their children, who make sure that their children are going to school, doing their homework and getting good grades are going to produce well-educated children.

That is the indication, but lets recall that you are talking about parenting with the confines of poverty... so the parents are likely overworked, low-paid, less-skilled, less-educated, and most likely to share whatever food is available in the household with their kids first.

Good thing that "food stamp" aid was recently cut by $4 Billion dollars a year, while subsidizing agribusiness by $billions.. some of which even members of Congress themselves (as farm subsidy beneficiaries) reap their own benefits.

Dang poor people and their kids being hungry and all before heading off to class...

It's the parents who don't care, who are too busy with their own lives, who aren't interested or active in their children's lives that produce badly-educated kids and that's a problem across all socio-economic lines, not just among the poor. However, we, as a society, have encouraged that kind of behavior through our inaction and we have to turn around and say that's just not acceptable anymore. It's something I wish we could do for everyone regardless of economic status, but so far, not everyone is getting a check from the government (although if the Obama administration has their way, it won't be long until the whole country has their hands out). We really only have an influence over a certain portion of the population and we have to use that influence to change bad behaviors so that we don't spend all of eternity handing over a monthly check to generation after generation.

You do realize, do you not, that the large majority of impoverished people in this nation are predominantly white, working families?

The majority of people living in poverty are children, the elderly, and military veterans?

More than 968,000 of veterans ages 18 to 64 had been in poverty in the past year in 2010.

Nearly one in seven homeless adults are veterans, as of December 2011.

A veteran lives in one in five households benefiting from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides heating and cooling assistance.

Whups.

USA! USA!

You can't force them, but a parent who exercises good parenting practices from day one certainly has a huge influence on how children turn out. It's very rare that a child with good parenting turns out bad, invariably you can take a bad kid and go back through their history and find that bad parenting is the source of their problems.

Though not in dispute generally ( I mean, well...duh), have you a compelling and credible source for others to reference in matters of lending fair comparison? You know, one that reveals data of "good parenting" vs. "bad parenting" and subsequent outcomes betwixt the two? Sounds like a good read....

It's because they learn, whether or not they are actively taught this by their parents and their local social group, that's how the world works. There is no active movement to get these people off welfare or to improve the lot of each successive generation so that they eventually are self-sufficient. Some of this is absolutely the government's fault. There was a time when a woman could not get welfare for herself and her children if she had a man living in the house, the assumption being that the man ought to be able to pay for it. That gave rise to rampant illegitimacy in the poor community and today, single-parent households in the poor communities are well above 60%. However, those rules haven't existed in decades, yet the numbers continue to go up, not down. This is something that the poor community has to change, but without some impetus to do so, this will continue to go on and get worse generation after generation. It continues because it can, the government permits it and even encourages it because it produces voters dependent on government largess and therefore more likely to vote for the party that hands out the most cash.

Ahhh. I see it all now! Poor people don't care about their children, must be lazy and feckless, evince no motivations of upward mobility or hopes of fiscal stability... and all drive Caddy's on YOUR almighty tax payer contributions!

An outrage indeed!

If only someone might just lend then a bit of a helping hand in times of need and crisis to get caught up... those lazy slobs!

It's a mess no matter how you look at it and ignoring it will not solve the problem.

The answer is now obvious, thank you.

It's that "tough love" revelation that is the answer!

Cut off any and ALL aid and assistance. Prevent the poor from EVER obtaining affordable heath care, food aid for kids, housing for vets, old people, the uneducated and the undocumented... and maybe, maybe , when their misery is at full tilt, they might just kill themselves....or just behead you instead, being ya know, poor and all.


Hmmm

PS. You do have the doors locked with a big gun in the closet and trusty Bible by your beside (just in case, cos ya never know), correct? Have a good night's rest, belly full and filled of charitable heart

Let us pray that one day the poor grow up to be "good" Amerucans like us

 

[Ingledsva]

I don't think we should have to pay anything for illegals. Making them legal every few years is a great incentive to come here illegally. I also think the law should be changed that allows the children of illegals born here, to be American citizens. If the parent is illegal so should the child be.

Another new practice that has shown up should also be nipped in the bud. Apparently middle to high income people in other countries are sending their pregnant wives here to give birth. The child is then an American citizen. They apply for dual citizenship for the child - and then the family can get dual citizenship. Allowing easy access to the USA.

*

 

[Curious George]

Just because all people can't, for the sake of argument, doesn't mean that the ones that could shouldn't be held accountable for doing so. What you're essentially arguing is that because absolutely everyone couldn't do it, let's throw the requirements entirely out the window so we don't make the people who are too screwed up feel bad.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

(Emphasis added)

I am starting to believe you have a very limited grasp on what I am saying if this is what you got. That or the italicized portion is written in a way where I am mistaken on what argument you are suggesting I have.

 

[Curious George]

Never said it did dude. The question was about the reduction in SNAP funding by congress. My point is that the program can be reduced, people need to learn to shop alittle more wisely and no one will starve to death. Others have chimed in with personal experiences to show this to be possible. This doesn't seem to faze you though.

And just because it is theoretically possibe- still waiting on a monthly menu...- Doesn't mean that shopping in such a way is possible for all or even the majority of food stamp recipients. I am sure you could probably go through and cut recipients prices by a couple dollars or even cents and save a bundle- and no one will greatly suffer but that doesn't mean we should. Moreover, cutting funding is the opposite that we need to do considering the number of people who need food assistance but do not get any!

 

[Curious George]

Unfortunately, some people are too emotionally attached to their opinions to ever be swayed by evidence.

evidence- look up statistics

Look at the number of people who need food assistance

Look at the number of homeless

Look at the correlation between poverty and crime

Now- what is your "evidence?"

that some people shop poorly

that some people choose to cheat the system rather than use it for the intended purpose.


I would rather try to address hunger issues even if that means there will be some free riders who abuse the system.


I think the problem is some people are too simple minded to address the larger picture. That or they are too emotionally attached to their argument to wake up and see reality.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Let me ask this question, how does everyone feel about drug testing folks on assistance? If they can afford drugs why are we giving them food? They could spend their drug money to feed themselves right?

To not do this, is de facto supporting their drug habit.

If they are on drugs, they most likely cannot work anywhere.

I don't want to hear about unfairness, because people get tested all the time at work.

If a person on assistance is found to be on drugs, we get them help but if they don't successfully complete a drug program and get off drugs, we should remove their children and assistance.

 

[metis]

Let me ask this question, how does everyone feel about drug testing folks on assistance? If they can afford drugs why are we giving them food? They could spend their drug money to feed themselves right?

To not do this, is de facto supporting their drug habit.

If they are on drugs, they most likely cannot work anywhere.

I don't want to hear about unfairness, because people get tested all the time at work.

If a person on assistance is found to be on drugs, we get them help but if they don't successfully complee a drug program and get off drugs, we should remove their children and assistance.

Just testing those who collect food stamps while ignoring testing those on other federal programs would almost without a doubt be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Why should we just test food stamp recipients but not those collecting Social Security or Medicare?

 

[Curious George]

Let me ask this question, how does everyone feel about drug testing folks on assistance? If they can afford drugs why are we giving them food? They could spend their drug money to feed themselves right?

To not do this, is de facto supporting their drug habit.

If they are on drugs, they most likely cannot work anywhere.

I don't want to hear about unfairness, because people get tested all the time at work.

If a person on assistance is found to be on drugs, we get them help but if they don't successfully complete a drug program and get off drugs, we should remove their children and assistance.

If there was a constitutional basis for this- then I would support it- with limitations. I think some threshold would need to exist- i.e. if someone has minute trace amounts of some drug in there system, I do not think that should act as standing to deprive such a person of benefits and children. However, at certain levels it is simply ridiculous- since there is no way a person can act as a provider and a good parent.

But constitutional limits prevent any such system- so we must make the best under the constraints of the 4th and 14th amendments.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Just testing those who collect food stamps while ignoring testing those on other federal programs would almost without a doubt be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Why should we just test food stamp recipients but not those collecting Social Security or Medicare?

First off I never said we should just test food stamp folks. Why would you imply that because I stayed on topic and only addressed food stamps?

Secondly, we have 5th generation folks who never worked a day in their lives or paid a penny in income taxes.

Lastly, social security is paid to folks who paid into the system their entire lives and is a little different than welfare or food stamps. The same could be said for unemployment. These systems are tied to previous participation and not need.

A person with a million dollars in the bank qualifies for medicare, social security or unemployment. They earned the right to receive what they get.

 

[metis]

If there was a constitutional basis for this- then I would support it- with limitations. I think some threshold would need to exist- i.e. if someone has minute trace amounts of some drug in there system, I do not think that should act as standing to deprive such a person of benefits and children. However, at certain levels it is simply ridiculous- since there is no way a person can act as a provider and a good parent.

But constitutional limits prevent any such system- so we must make the best under the constraints of the 4th and 14th amendments.

Yes, and there are other issues at stake as well. What about the spouse, if any, and children of a family whereas one of the spouses may have a drug problem and are then denied food stamps?

BTW, a recent estimate I just saw last week had it that approximately 6% of food stamp recipients have a drug problem. And another interesting item is that the misuse of legal drugs is more widespread than the use of illegal drugs in the U.S.