Notifications
Clear all

Food Stamps  

Page 11 / 11
 

ikory
(@ikory)
Advanced Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 203
August 21, 2013 3:48 am  

it took us three months to finally get food stamps after applying. We ate a lot of roman noodles, biscuits out of flour, and rice until we finally got on it. All i wanted was meat but sadly i was to embarrassed to go to the store with my wife. She brought home shrimp and steaks. We ate like kings. i know she was judged for the items she bought. I see it online all the time; "another minority buying prime steaks with tax payers money." Which if we bought those items all the time we would starve most the month. I wonder how many people judged her for buying those things on food stamps. the stigma is so harsh in this country. After waiting almost a year plus to get my retirement pay from DFAS and the veterans affairs we got off food stamps.

i figured i would share this story so it would get us to think twice before judging someone for what they buy on food stamps.


ReplyQuote
SydSol
(@SydSol)
Advanced Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 83
September 5, 2013 11:50 pm  

The concept that we must eat like kings and that we must eat steak and shrimp to be like kings is understandable, considering our capitalistic colonial history and that is craved in order to be deemed satisfied and equal. Yet when everybody realizes that we must eat healthy food that is from sustainable sources grown locally, and not from corporations and that food like steak is bad for health, bad for animals and bad for the planet, as is most packaged food and animal products, and that the joy and satisfaction of life comes largely from growing, preparing and esting good, clean, humane food we have a relationship to, we will all be equal, everyone will be fed,healthy, happy and we will have peace on earth.


ReplyQuote
noOne
(@noOne)
Trusted Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1495
September 6, 2013 2:35 am  

The wrong Republican to talk about food stamps

"The role of citizens, of Christianity, of humanity, is to take care of each other, not for Washington to steal from those in the country and give to others in the country," Mr. Fincher, whose office did not respond to interview requests, said after his vote in May. In response to a Democrat who invoked the Bible during the food stamp debate in Congress, Mr. Fincher cited his own biblical phrase. "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat," he said.

.....

Fincher collected nearly $3.5 million in taxpayer-financed farm subsidies from 1999 to 2012, including roughly $70,000 just last year in the form of direct payments from Washington, paid for by you and me.


ReplyQuote
speee1dy
(@speee1dy)
Expert
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 8792
September 6, 2013 12:02 pm  

red meat in moderation is not bad for you. most food in moderation is not bad for you. gmo is bad for you. monsanto is bad for you. naturally grown and naturally raised food is good.


ReplyQuote
rotorhead
(@rotorhead)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2472
January 24, 2014 10:10 pm  


ReplyQuote
noOne
(@noOne)
Trusted Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1495
January 24, 2014 11:21 pm  

So, rotor, absolutely no one should get food stamps?


ReplyQuote
CruzanIron
(@cruzaniron)
Trusted Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 2482
January 24, 2014 11:39 pm  

I think that he is saying that we should feed the animals.


ReplyQuote
rotorhead
(@rotorhead)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2472
January 25, 2014 1:51 am  

So, rotor, absolutely no one should get food stamps?

No one should be allowed to get food stamps as a lifestyle. Short term, maybe. Long term, No. They should instead be offered employment. We have many jobs that need to be performed. Have you ever noticed how dirty our beaches are? Have you ever noticed the litter on the sides of our roads? We have enough potholes to keep people busy for a very long time.

No one deserves a free ride. That includes anyone who is irresponsible enough to have children when they can't even afford to support themselves.

Workfare, Yes. Welfare, No.


ReplyQuote
divinggirl
(@divinggirl)
Trusted Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 887
January 25, 2014 10:24 am  

I still maintain that if you are getting paid you should work for it. If you are getting a check you should work for it. Give me 8 hours a day and you get paid (just like the rest of us). Maybe you do the filing, maybe you are an attendant in the daycare, maybe you take a class on accounting, computers, customer service or resume writing, maybe you clean up the office, paint, landscape....something. This country used to value work and people had good solid work ethics and it seems to me that we are losing that and fast. Welfare should not be a way of life, it should be a hand UP not a hand out.

Unemployment is another issue. I've used it, it's necessary. However, not a week goes by that someone doesn't come in to my place of work and want me to sign their paper. I don't tell them if we are hiring or not, instead I ask what their skills/experience are and they can't/won't answer. I tell them we are always open to finding a good fit and if they can leave their resume our management team will review it. I have yet to have anyone give me a resume. Is everyone who is on unemployment "milking" the system, no but there are plenty that do. Unemployment started in the 1930's (if I remember right) but I bet the work ethic then prevented most people from "milking" the system.
The system seems designed to encourage people to just get signatures or fill in the paper. I don't recall how many lines needed to be filled in each week on the forms. When I was looking for a job there were about 2 jobs a week that were appropriate for my education, skills and experience and I submitted my resume and networked. Yet I was required to "fill in the whole form". When I discussed this with the staff person at Labor I was told it didn't matter what I was looking for I just had to "fill in the whole form". This was years ago and I hope that attitude has changed but I kind of doubt it.

Just another thought about work ethic... Why does everyone think that having their cell phone with them and using it all day at work is an entitlement? I have no issues if you are waiting for an important message, call or occasional text, depending on your work environment, but to be using it and texting all day long? We had a young guy at work who literally had to be told to leave his cell sit and pay attention to his work so then he'd take it into the bathroom with him (ugh). Makes me crazy.


ReplyQuote
OldTart
(@the-oldtart)
Expert
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 6523
January 25, 2014 3:51 pm  

No one should be allowed to get food stamps as a lifestyle. Short term, maybe. Long term, No. They should instead be offered employment. ]

Food stamps are only issued for one year and must be reapplied for in person annually. There is no automatic rubber-stamping. Many people who receive food stamps are the disabled, and senior citizens who are unable to work.


ReplyQuote
rotorhead
(@rotorhead)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2472
January 25, 2014 9:16 pm  

Do you think that Food Stamps are a form of "charity" or an "entitlement". Who deserves Food Stamps? Just U.S. Citizens or anyone who happens to move to or sneak into the U.S.?

Food Stamps remind me of the old Chinese adage. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Food Stamps do not teach responsibility, they teach just the opposite.


ReplyQuote
noOne
(@noOne)
Trusted Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1495
January 26, 2014 10:34 pm  

The new face of food stamps: working-age Americans

That's from the AP web site. I found it to be an interesting read, any comments?

By education, about 28 percent of food stamp households are headed by a person with at least some college training, up from 8 percent in 1980. Among those with four-year college degrees, the share rose from 3 percent to 7 percent. High-school graduates head the bulk of food stamp households at 37 percent, up from 28 percent. In contrast, food stamp households headed by a high-school dropout have dropped by more than half, to 28 percent.


ReplyQuote
CruzanIron
(@cruzaniron)
Trusted Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 2482
January 26, 2014 11:03 pm  

So the smarter you are, the better chance you have of bilking the system.

Oh, and as global warming increases, more people use food stamps.


ReplyQuote
noOne
(@noOne)
Trusted Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1495
January 26, 2014 11:39 pm  


ReplyQuote
rotorhead
(@rotorhead)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2472
January 27, 2014 2:11 am  

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

Disincentives to Work
The choice of welfare over work is often a rational decision based on economic incentives. Empirical studies confirm that welfare is a disincentive for work. For example, an analysis of interstate variation in labor force participation by economists Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and Robert Lawson found that such participation declined as welfare benefits increased. Similarly, Robert Moffitt of Brown University found that the work effort of welfare recipients was reduced by as much as 30 percent.

Replacing Welfare with Private Charity
The 1996 welfare reforms were a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done. The next step should be to transfer full responsibility for funding and administering welfare programs to the states. The states would have freedom to innovate with their low-income programs and would have strong incentives to reduce taxpayer costs and maximize work incentives.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hhs/welfare-spending#top


ReplyQuote
noOne
(@noOne)
Trusted Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1495
January 27, 2014 3:01 am  

From: The Brittle Grip, Part 2

I first started noticing this when I saw several years ago that many of the wealthiest people in the country, especially people in financial services, not only didn't support Obama (not terribly surprising) but had a real and palpable sense that he was out to get them. This was hard to reconcile with the fact that Obama, along with President Bush, had pushed through a series of very unpopular laws and programs and fixes that had not only stabilized global capitalism, saved Wall Street but saved the personal fortunes (and perhaps even the personal liberty) of the people who were turning so acidly against him. Indeed, through the critical years of 2009, 10 and 11 he was serving as what amounted to Wall Street's personal heat shield, absorbing as political damage the public revulsion at the bailout policies that had kept Wall Street whole.

...

One is the simple but massive run up in the concentration of wealth itself over the past two generations. There's a slice of the population, whether it's the top 1% or .01% or whatever, that doesn't just have more stuff and money. The sheer scale of the difference means they live what is simply a qualitatively different kind of existence. That gulf creates estrangement and alienation, and one of a particular sort in a democracy where such a minuscule sliver of the population can't hope to protect itself alone at the ballot box.

Let's call this socioeconomic acrophobia.

A second is tied specifically to the 2008 financial crisis. The last 35 years or so have seen a period in which the celebration of wealth and the wealthy has been near the extreme end of the pendulum swing that has moved back and forth over the course of American history. Let's not distract ourselves, for the moment, with whether this view is right or wrong. It's a pendulum swing as old as America. In this view, the super rich, the founders and most successful entrepreneurs, not only wow us by their genius and success but are also seen as the people driving forward the society and economy and prosperity for everyone. That's a nice climate to be wealthy in.

That all changed very abruptly at the end of 2008.

Suddenly, there was vast public animus at "Wall Street" and the Big Banks, exacerbated massively by the politics of the bailout. And not just from the left but from the right too, though in a different form. Pretty deserved on many levels: the financial sector, the figurative "Wall Street", had come close to crashing the global economic system by a mix of irresponsible risk taking and gaming the political system to permit this high-risk, wealth-juicing leverage. But if we're to understand the psychology of the individuals involved we must appreciate the whipsaw nature of that experience.

...

And then there's the other really important variable in the equation. We know now that Wall Street came out of the financial crisis pretty nicely. But that was far from clear in the fall of 2008. The titans, under-titans and sub-titans saw the entire financial system spin on the edge of un-self-regulating collapse, something the reining ideology of recent decades said shouldn't have been possible along with the real prospect of whole personal fortunes evaporating in an instant. That kind of scare is not easy to forget. Mix it with the need to run to the political class hat in hand and that ocean of animus from the public at large and you get the makings of a political and psychological toxicity that breeds Perkinsonian nonsense at the extreme end and more pervasively the sense of embattlement and threat verging on persecution complex that I described above.

...

We take it more or less rightly as a given that people in finance will have generally right-leaning politics - low taxes, tight money, lax regulatory regimes. Basically traditional money Republicanism. But over the last few years (since 2008), I think there's been a pretty dramatic growth in what we'd call Tea Party politics in that set - extreme conservatism that goes beyond hands off fiscal and regulatory policy, the kind of feverish mindset in which you could write with a straight face that progressives might be building toward some sort of mass wealth confiscation or internment or even extermination for the likes of Tom Perkins.

People like Mr. Perkins are delusional...


ReplyQuote
sheiba
(@sheiba)
Advanced Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 483
January 27, 2014 6:31 pm  

Really. Still discussing this a year later! OY!


ReplyQuote
MissJustice
(@MissJustice)
Trusted Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 548
June 6, 2014 9:57 am  

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

Disincentives to Work
The choice of welfare over work is often a rational decision based on economic incentives. Empirical studies confirm that welfare is a disincentive for work. For example, an analysis of interstate variation in labor force participation by economists Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and Robert Lawson found that such participation declined as welfare benefits increased. Similarly, Robert Moffitt of Brown University found that the work effort of welfare recipients was reduced by as much as 30 percent.

Replacing Welfare with Private Charity
The 1996 welfare reforms were a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done. The next step should be to transfer full responsibility for funding and administering welfare programs to the states. The states would have freedom to innovate with their low-income programs and would have strong incentives to reduce taxpayer costs and maximize work incentives.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hhs/welfare-spending#top/blockquote >

Interesting. You currently quote a slave owning president about "free exercise of industry and acquiring the fruits..."
I am beginning to understand a little better where it is that you come from.


ReplyQuote
speee1dy
(@speee1dy)
Expert
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 8792
June 6, 2014 12:13 pm  

interesting, this morning i heard on the news that in one state where they had implemented drug testing for foodstamps/welfare, thousands decided they did not need the help after all.

i do believe there are people that truly do need the help. wouldnt it be nice if they had to learn a trade while on welfare and have a time limit for doing so. give them two years to go to school, learn a trade or get a degree. after that they are on their own. cheaper than welfare for life.

there are people who can not work though.

not a one size fits all


ReplyQuote
CruzanIron
(@cruzaniron)
Trusted Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 2482
June 6, 2014 1:19 pm  

This says it all.....

Work for Welfare


ReplyQuote
noOne
(@noOne)
Trusted Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1495
June 6, 2014 2:08 pm  

Here is what I think is a fair look at food stamps:

Why are 47 million Americans on food stamps? It’s the recession — mostly

There's a fairly basic question at the core of the current food-stamp debate in Congress. Why has the program grown so rapidly over the past few years — to the point where 47 million Americans, one-sixth of the country, now receive food stamps?


ReplyQuote
Page 11 / 11
Close Menu