Food Stamps - The Black Hole

[IanCG]

I don't care how she got the purse, the money, the car. I don't care if they are or are not "nice things" or if she has a household full of nice things.

I care that Americans are so willing to find excuses for a "poor" woman with a $400.00 purse, a car, $800.00 on hand and....is receiving food stamps. I care that you don't care about that and seem so unwilling to question it.

You care about a whole lot of a situation you know nothing about, and want to make changes in your ignorance. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

 

[kermit]

You care about a whole lot of a situation you know nothing about, and want to make changes in your ignorance. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Bingo! We have a winner!

 

[disciple0dave0012]

Sounds like a reasonable assumption to me. Are you advocating food stamps for the rich? Isn't it the responsibility of the rich that have fallen on hard times to sell their luxury possessions to feed themselves before they take money taxed from those that do not live such luxurious lifestyles?

aculte you dfo have to they wont let you on if you have X amont in assest cus i am on food stamps and had to put my car in my moms name so i ownt have to sell it. its only worth about 2k so if i did sell it i would only have enough money for rent n food for a few mouths but no way to work if i ever can get one i been look for over a year it is the same way with SSI n SSD

 

[1whirlwind]

You care about a whole lot of a situation you know nothing about, and want to make changes in your ignorance. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

We have the same article before our eyes. Decide whatever you want...I did.

 

[mpok1519]

Is it important that people who are rich be allowed to get food for free when they have lying ungaurded in their car the means to feed themselves for quite a long time?

Public assistance programs are not for the rich. I don't know where you keep getting these ridiculous ideas.

 

[kermit]

We have the same article before our eyes. Decide whatever you want...I did.

You decided by filling in the missing facts with assumptions.

I choose to reserve my decision until I am presented with the missing facts.

 

[DaisyDay]

So....Obama's stand on Abortion, Contraception, Gay Marriage, Prayers in Public School....don't enter your "moral decency" qualms?

They do and I agree with them.






















.

 

[mpok1519]

They do and I agree with them.

Me too.

 

[Illuminaughty]

The food stamps = slavery bit is absurd and insulting to the people still stuck in slavery and human trafficking. Here are some important differences between the two:

1. You don't have to receive food stamps if you don't want them.
2. Slaves don't get to vote at all.
3. You can stop getting assistance if you don't want it.
4.You don't get bull whipped, raped , or otherwise beaten.
5. People are actually glad they are not left to starve when they need the program whereas slaves usually aren't particularly happy about being forced to work for free and being treated as human farm equipment.
6. You don't get abducted at gun point and put on food stamps.


Anyone else who wants to can add more to this list if they want.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Me too.

Not me, nor the bible.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

The food stamps = slavery bit is absurd and insulting to the people still stuck in slavery and human trafficking. Here are some important differences between the two:

1. You don't have to receive food stamps if you don't want them.
2. Slaves don't get to vote at all.
3. You can stop getting assistance if you don't want it.
4.You don't get bull whipped, raped , or otherwise beaten.
5. People are actually glad they are not left to starve when they need the program whereas slaves usually aren't particularly happy about being forced to work for free and being treated as human farm equipment.
6. You don't get abducted at gun point and put on food stamps.


Anyone else who wants to can add more to this list if they want.

I don't think anyone needs a list to discern the differences, much less a continuation of such.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I don't think anyone needs a list to discern the differences, much less a continuation of such

JPECDOTAL: "Food Stamps...it is what makes slaves and easy votes"
Jeffwhosoever: "Sadly, you are right."

There is a long tradition of comparing foodstamps and welfare with slavery among conservatives.

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

Foodstamps are the left's idea of being "better off than four years ago". lol

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Exactly. Getting more jobs is wonderful. Go about creating them. Don't cut people off from food if they need it though. The idea that you just cut food stamps and jobs start magically appearing is a pipe dream. Electing a Republican wont make the food stamp program obsolete. They aren't going to give everyone a high paying job.

Indeed. Especially seeing that other Republicans supported welfare as well as welfare reform (as Bush did, more here/ here and here and here if recalling what was done withGeorge Bush and the Americans with Disabilities Act). George Bush advocated for welfare when it came to his concept of Compassionate Conservatism. Back then, the ideology was that Republican leaders could be fiscally conservative, favor "small government," and believe in the free market, for example, but also believe that government should and must partner with the private sector -- especially non-profit and faith-based organizations -- to help lift people out of poverty, both abroad in the developing world and here at home in the richest nation on the planet. Such a conviction requires two things: A genuine empathy and commitment to the poor, and a more balanced and positive view of government -- neither of which were much evident in the GOP's right-wing quarters, where the compassionate conservative agenda was opposed by party leaders such as Tom DeLay and Dick Armey....and yet that is something that has worked repeatedly in differing contexts/settings, from memories of ancient history if recalling the Byzantine Empire/the Sheer brilliance it demonstrated in ensuring others were taken care of to what happened with many faith-based initiatives who did excellent work/benefited from support given by the government to fund their actions (more on both described here in #124 and #264 ).

Other conservatives have shared similar thoughts with welfare reform..

• Article | What Is Compassionate Conservatism?'
• Column: Is compassionate conservatism dead?
• Whites and Welfare: GOP and the Food Stamp Fallacy
• Compassionate Conservatism: A Primer | Hoover Institution
• 
  Republicans back Clinton welfare rule - Washington Times
• Welfare Reform Solutions | Republican Study Committee (RSC)

President Obama actually supported Bush in the actions he sought to implement when it came to faith-based organizations/volunteer-based programs as ways to help others through hard times:

Obama Celebrates George H.W. Bush Volunteerism​

It's a lie/falsehood thinking that social safety nets being eliminated are the key to making jobs...and if that kind of logic is what others feel will make solutions, then they need to go the entire way and stop advocating for welfare for corporations/businesses via subsidies and incentives/support. The reality is that people on both sides support welfare and simply debate on where they think it should go....

Others who seem to idolize Romney/Ryan have often said that they're concerned about the needs of the poor (despite the multiple times that the opposite has been said directly)....and their plans do a lot of damage when it comes to the impoverished since it has often taken the government working with people in order for things to work.

As said best elsewhere:

Ryan has said local charities and churches should provide for needy communities instead of the federal government. But there is a flaw this plan: churches and faith-based charities, which offer roughly $50 billion worth of services a year to the poor and needy, often depend on government funds to operate. Catholic Charities, for example, is one of the largest charities in America, and gets over half of its operating budget from federal funds.

Yet the Romney/Ryan ticket appears undeterred by this reality. In fact, if Romney followed through on Ryan’s proposed budget and cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by $169 billion, every single church in America would have to come up with an additional $50,000 simply to feed those in need. For many cash-strapped churches, this is an impossible task.

What’s more, the Romney/Ryan budget would likely overburden soup kitchens and food programs by cutting welfare, food stamps and agriculture subsidies by two trillion dollars over the next ten years. These cuts would leave millions of Americans – especially those most in need of assistance – without the means to feed and clothe themselves, and already-overburdened faith-based charities unable to provide for them.

So if congregations and charities can’t provide the care required and Ryan’s government refuses to help, who exactly is the “strong” tasked with stepping in for the “weak”? Ryan isn’t saying.

Ryan and other conservative commentators like Gov. Mike Huckabee talk a lot about how they believe faith is under attack in America. But if Ryan truly believes a society is best judged by “how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves,” then perhaps he should take a second look at how his own policy proposals negatively affect those doing the hard work of caring for the poor — churches and faith-based charities.

The charity functions for many mainline churches are like small boutique shops in a mall. They aren’t meant to be the main support for the indigent. It is more of a hobby and if they were then required to be a main support system many of these hobbyist helpers will stop helping.


So when the religious charity model collapses upon itself then what?

People will be hurt or worse could die.


The conservative model is if you cut the money it will force people to get off the dole but many people need help through no fault of their own so they can’t just “get a job” especially if the poverty is structural (there are just no jobs). A city will have many options but the largest segment of poor is outside the cities which also then has fewer resources outside the government.


Forcing all of the social safety net on the churches doesn’t wish away the poor as Paul Ryan and those like him believe. And if he does get his plan put into action you can bet the money cut in the budget will not go to the people who could actually use it to survive
​

 

[katautumn]

And? My parents are on SNAP benefits. My dad lost his very cushy job going on four years ago. He works in a very specific field that is dying by the day (commercial offset printing) and he's in his fifties. This has been a terrible combination of factors for him in his hunt for a job. At first they did fine on unemployment, but when that ran out they knew they'd need some help, so they applied for food assistance and were accepted. It's been a God send for them.

But, if you look at the thing they have, you may assume they're milking the system. The 52" scarlet edition LG LCD TV may send up a red flag. Or perhaps my mother's Lord & Taylor blazers. What about my brother's extensive electric guitar collection, furnished by my parents as gifts for occasions such a birthdays and Christmas? Or how about my mother's costly kitchen appliances or nice shoes? These were all bought back before my father lost his job.

People seem to think if a person is currently on assistance they must have always been in poverty, therefore, any evidence of having nice things must mean you're a fraud. And the $800 in the woman's purse? How do we know she didn't juts cash her Social Security check and was about to go pay her rent? Just because someone has $800 doesn't mean they're rich and don't need help with necessities in life...like food.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

We don't need to end food stamps. We need jobs that are attractive enough that people will prefer work to subsidy. Romney is the man to do that as POTUS.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

My parents are on SNAP benefits. My dad lost his very cushy job going on four years ago. He works in a very specific field that is dying by the day (commercial offset printing) and he's in his fifties. This has been a terrible combination of factors for him in his hunt for a job. At first they did fine on unemployment, but when that ran out they knew they'd need some help, so they applied for food assistance and were accepted. It's been a God send for them.

But, if you look at the thing they have, you may assume they're milking the system. The 52" scarlet edition LG LCD TV may send up a red flag. Or perhaps my mother's Lord & Taylor blazers. What about my brother's extensive electric guitar collection, furnished by my parents as gifts for occasions such a birthdays and Christmas? Or how about my mother's costly kitchen appliances or nice shoes? These were all bought back before my father lost his job.

People seem to think if a person is currently on assistance they must have always been in poverty, therefore, any evidence of having nice things must mean you're a fraud. And the $800 in the woman's purse? How do we know she didn't juts cash her Social Security check and was about to go pay her rent? Just because someone has $800 doesn't mean they're rich and don't need help with necessities in life...like food.

Thank you for sharing as you did. I'm always amazed at the sheer idiocy of others assuming those on welfare are doing so because they don't want a job....or thinking that they are taking advantage of the system rather than finding jobs. There are numerous other stories directly as the one you noted where people were at the top and quickly came to the bottom due to no fault of their own--with the subsidies helping them to get through hard times until they could adapt. For others, paticularly those who are disabled (be it elderly vets or those who were born with special needs and grow up mentally challenged), the safety nets in placed helped them out. By the logic of others, the person who was paralyzed/in a wheelchair and in need of aid simply needs to "get a job/work hard"----and that logic is often said by people who've never been in the position nor have actually worked a day in their life with others on welfare.

There's also the issue of single mothers who themselves are already seeking to get by with what they have...

Others who advocate against the food stamps or welfare are often ignorant of how the system works and rely more so on propoganda/party rhetoric rather than working with people impacted by it in real life. It's why so much of what is being said by people in politics is really silly...specially when they champion one president because of their claims that the other is a "food stamp" president and yet they're doing just fine/have never been impoverished while they also advocate for subsidies for their business from the government.

 

[DollIsMine]

And? My parents are on SNAP benefits. My dad lost his very cushy job going on four years ago. He works in a very specific field that is dying by the day (commercial offset printing) and he's in his fifties. This has been a terrible combination of factors for him in his hunt for a job. At first they did fine on unemployment, but when that ran out they knew they'd need some help, so they applied for food assistance and were accepted. It's been a God send for them.

But, if you look at the thing they have, you may assume they're milking the system. The 52" scarlet edition LG LCD TV may send up a red flag. Or perhaps my mother's Lord & Taylor blazers. What about my brother's extensive electric guitar collection, furnished by my parents as gifts for occasions such a birthdays and Christmas? Or how about my mother's costly kitchen appliances or nice shoes? These were all bought back before my father lost his job.

People seem to think if a person is currently on assistance they must have always been in poverty, therefore, any evidence of having nice things must mean you're a fraud. And the $800 in the woman's purse? How do we know she didn't juts cash her Social Security check and was about to go pay her rent? Just because someone has $800 doesn't mean they're rich and don't need help with necessities in life...like food.

Obviously they should have to sell all their possessions except for the bare necessities if they run into any kind of financial trouble. We should strive to make financial hardship as costly and traumatic as possible and ending food stamps is just one way to make that happen.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Obviously they should have to sell all their possessions except for the bare necessities if they run into any kind of financial trouble. We should strive to make financial hardship as costly and traumatic as possible and ending food stamps is just one way to make that happen.

Um, no.

 

[DollIsMine]

Um, no.

So basically you're a socialist who wants to make everyone happy and secure by just giving them money whenever they are between jobs even if they have big fancy TVs, ok then.