Time to Put an End to Food Stamps!

from JoeUser Forums

I have been thinking a lot about the food stamp program lately. It is becoming more and more apparent to me that food stamps are a program that the federal government can, and should eliminate.

Now of course, a lot of people will be asking "what about the starving in the US?" Their question, while sincere, is ignorant of the facts. The simple truth is, there is no reason for ANYONE in this country to starve. None.

Why do I make such a sweeping statement? Simple. Because private charities in the United States have done their job. There are food banks in all but the smallest communities, and while there are people to consider within those communities, they generally have a means of travelling to larger communities, or else they wouldn't live in those smaller communities in the first place. Communities too small to house a food bank are also unlikely to have a welfare office anyway.

The truth is, in my experience and that of many others I know, most food stamp money isn't used for food, but is "fenced" for drugs, cigarettes and alcohol despite well intentioned efforts to end such abuse. The same families that receive $500-600 a month in food stamps can also be seen at every local food bank  getting their weekly or monthly allotment of handouts. The food stamp money is a negotiable commodity for them, plain and simple.

What liberal in this country fail to recognize is the simple truth that private charities have been shown to work. Second Harvest and other similar minded organizations have done an unparallelled job of reclaiming our waste and ensuring that surplus food finds its way into the mouths of those who so desperately needed instead of the old system of being trucked to the local landfill.

Sure, I think there should be some sort of voucher availability for certain items that are hard to obtain at a food bank, such as milk, eggs, flour, oil, and similar products. But even a voucher system should be privately administered so that it can be customized to the individual needs of the families. There's simply no excuse for the waste that is the USDA food stamp program.

politics
12,003 views 50 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top


I do agree with what you have said but are you suggesting that volunteer programs pick up the slack if we shut down food stamps?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Food stamp recipients already rely primarily on private charities for FOOD...food stamps just give them something of monetary value to fence. If anything, food stamp recipients should be ineligible to use food banks, as the monetary value of food stamps far exceeds the financial needs of families receiving aid.

For the record, I'm also in favor of handing out free packets of seed with pamphlets on gardening. It's still a whole lot cheaper and life changing than the food stamp program.
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
$500 - $600 a month for food?

Holy crap!

That's some good eatin' right there.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
while your argument does have some merit, i think that the food stamps program is the best that the government can do. i understand that you think the government should totally get out of it, however if it did that would be going against that which is stated in the preamble of the Constitution, "provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare". I believe that because of what is stated in the constitution it is imparative that the U.S gov. step in to at least attempt to provide for those citizens who cannot provide for themselves.
sure private charities are able to help those who truly need help, but charities alone are not enough to reach all Americans. private charities only work in conjunction with government provided help.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Texas,

And yet that's the kind of money a family of six gets for food stamps...PLUS WIC if they qualify, PLUS automatic approval at most food banks.

Kinda warped, doncha think?

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
But Gid buddy, you are missing the true point of food stamps. Have you ever wondered why the Food Stamp program is run by the Department of Agriculture? Actually, so is the School Lunch program.

Fact is, niether program was set up to help the poor. They were set up as a subsidy program for agriculture. So, even if all our poor were being fed by private charities (I agree, this is where it belongs), the government would still have to buy all that food, to support the farmers.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
As I continue to maintain, you cannot shut down a program, be it welfare or food stamps, based on those who tend to abuse them. All that does is penalize those who really, really need those programs. Sure, it's great that private charities contribute. But, those charities are not guaranteed to feed people, whereas a federal program, such as food stamps, will guarantee that people will eat. And, if it costs me more in taxes, then I'm willing to pay those taxes. It's a much more worthwhile expense than a war I do not believe in, and am thoroughly convinced was waged based on lies and selfish enterprises.

Gid, I know you are a die-hard libertarian, so regulatory federal programs make you angry. But, this kind of program is not regulatory, though admittedly, it can get out of hand. This kind of program supports people who need the support, particularly those who may be medically or emotionally handicapped, and those who need a temporary lift up from poverty. Throwing out this kind of program is tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bath water. Not a good idea.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

"provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare".

It does not say the government can/should RUN programs to do this. The idea of welfare as we know it came about as a result of socialist inspired reforms in the 1940's and 1960's, not because of the ideas of the founding fathers.

The facts are facts: Private charities are more efficient, and better safeguards against fraud. And they ARE doing their job. I can attest to the fact that you CAN feed your family entirely off of food from private food banks and your own garden, with need for VERY LITTLE else...in fact, so little that you could scrape up the needed funds just picking cans off the road.

The per capita expenditures of our federal government are appalling: $8566 per YEAR per man, woman and child in this country. And that does NOT count the expenditures of state, county and local governments. The food stamp program is a boondoggle that only serves to fuel drug, alcohol and tobacco use among the poor who need nutrition worse than ANY of those things. And the ones who suffer the most from our current system are the children, who do not make these irresponsible choices but must suffer from the consequences of these choices long into adulthood. We must stop enabling these individuals for the betterment of our nation.

 

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Fact is, niether program was set up to help the poor. They were set up as a subsidy program for agriculture. So, even if all our poor were being fed by private charities (I agree, this is where it belongs), the government would still have to buy all that food, to support the farmers.

Oh, I'm well aware of this as well. Farm subsidies are a whole other (but related) issue. They need to go as well.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
well then what happens if these charities go belly up? Then who do we have to feed these people?Garbage cans?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
i am sure that those who have access to a private charity can feed themselves but i can assure you that not everyone can. i live in rural Kentucky and i promise you it would be quite difficult to get to a private charities headquarters, and in most cases it is those who live in the middle of nowhere who need food stamps the most.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

That's some good eatin' right there.

Who do you think affords the $9.99 T-Bones??????

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

And, if it costs me more in taxes, then I'm willing to pay those taxes. It's a much more worthwhile expense than a war I do not believe in, and am thoroughly convinced was waged based on lies and selfish enterprises.

Frankly, dabe, I agree with this statement 100%. And see, there's yet another reason I believe that the LP proposals offer a better solution.

You see, the LP proposes a dollar for dollar tax credit for donations to private charities. This means that under their proposal, individuals such as you and I could "vote with our wallet" and direct our tax liability towards charities that work to heal instead of kill.

The food stamp program, though, is riddled with flaws. For one, the amounts distributed are insanely huge. This is why you see many food stamp recipients buying steaks; after they've bought the food they need, there's simply TOO MUCH left for them to know what to do with. This is ESPECIALLY true of the frugal families; as someone who has received aid when we've needed it on a few occasions, I can tell you for a fact that when you've spent the $200 or so a month on food your family NEEDS and STILL have $400 left, that same sense of frugality tells you it's a waste not to use it. In our case, we used it on nonperishables so that we would have food left and not need to reapply after our six month period, but too many families don't think for the future. And why should they? There's simply no incentive.

The thing is, our approach to welfare does nothing to promote long term self reliance. For any effective program to work, this needs to change. And employees of the welfare system are not in the proper place to assess and meet a family's true needs. There are many needs that are not/cannot be met by the programs in place. For instance, my wife virtually never gets to leave our community of 500. Why, you ask? Well, simply because she does not drive (and teaching her's a losing battle; I learned that years ago), and we cannot fit all seven of our family into a regular passenger car. We desperately need a van, and with my salary which barely covers our needs and the fact that even a barely running minivan will set you back at least $2500 in this market, that ain't happening. And yet, needed transportation is one thing we cannot get through any of the programs in place (going further: In Pahrump, where most of the jobs to be had require a 60 mile commute to Vegas or Death Valley, and even the local jobs are often 20 miles away, we were unable to obtain transportation to get to and from work. That's why we had to leave).

Frankly, programs such as the food stamp program have forced us as a society to become overly reliant on the government and not to come together as a community. But because government programs are horribly limited in their scope, we need to look to private charities for more effective, longterm solutions.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

live in rural Kentucky and i promise you it would be quite difficult to get to a private charities headquarters, and in most cases it is those who live in the middle of nowhere who need food stamps the most.

How, then, do they get to the welfare office?

And why are they not given seeds and encouraged to garden? Gardening can provide income AND nutrition, killing two birds with one stone for them.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Very Good Gideon.  It is a boon doggle.  Such that now, instead of serving the poor, local welfare agencies (that actually do the distribution) are soliciting for candidates!  You should have seen the arm twisting they were doing after Isabel hit here!  And a lot of fraud was committed due to them trying to push food stamps on people not qualified.

Out of 11k employees, the local Welfare agency found over 500 cases of fraud after the hurricane.  And it was for a measly $300 per person!

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
And, if it costs me more in taxes, then I'm willing to pay those taxes


This is the problem, Dear Dabe. There is no honor or altruism in mandatory alms to the poor. Calling for government sponsored charity only means the people aren't willing to do it ourselves.

Unless those who call for more charity are giving it themselves, it should be named for what it is, laziness.

The ironic part about all the people who call for more government charity, but protest "evil corperations" are clueless as to how much of that "charity" money goes to the very corperations they despise. ;~D
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's some good eatin' right there.


shit,thats definantly good eatin', when i lived with my mom, we got 275$ a month in food stamps,it was just barely enough

All that does is penalize those who really, really need those programs.



i agree with you on this Dabe


T-Bones


"Mmmmmmmmmm t-bone......"

This is why you see many food stamp recipients buying steaks; after they've bought the food they need


We (when i lived with my mom) and my sister, who is on food stamps, never was able to buy t-bones, she hardly got enough food stamps to cover there necessities (basic food...the cheap stuff) I am for food stamps, the only thing is that it needs to be re-worked...
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Lucas,

I feed my family of 7 on less than $200 a month; $275 a month for three of you is not chump change.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is the problem, Dear Dabe.


First of all, I am not your dear dabe. How utterly patronizing...........

Unless those who call for more charity are giving it themselves, it should be named for what it is, laziness.


Can you please expound upon this statement. I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Are you saying that those who don't contribute are lazy? Or, are you saying that those who partake in the food stamp program are lazy?

.
The ironic part about all the people who call for more government charity, but protest "evil corperations" are clueless as to how much of that "charity" money goes to the very corperations they despise. ;~D


Again, what the hell does this mean? You really need to brush up on your communication skills, dear ted.

As for food stamps and who may really need them, you don't know squat. I have a handicapped son, who relies on food stamps. If not for them, he'd likely starve, as he is also a social phobic, and will not go to the food kitchen. He is also rather particular about what he eats, cooks for himself, and it ain't steak, though he does eat some meat. He makes, predominantly rice and beans, and vegetables. He eats relatively healthy food, does not spend his food stamps on alcohol, cat food and cigarettes, and if his stamps were cut or eliminated, he'd be in trouble. But, I'm sure you'd then go on to state how I should be footing his bill. I'm not going to indulge your "curiosity". You have no idea of his or my circumstances, and I don't feel like sharing with you, or anyone else here, for that matter.

I really hate these lousy, stupid, and blindly judgmental generalizations about who receives what.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I reread my statements Dabe, they are understandable enough, for anyone who really cares to understand them. For you though, I'll be glad to expound.

I am saying that those who call for the government to put more money into social programs, but don't lift a finger or donate their own money or means to those they say they care about are L-A-Z-Y. They pat each other on the back for their altruism, but they accomplish nothing.

What I mean is, where do you think all that food stamp money goes? It goes to enlarge corperate bottom lines. The food stamp program was not established to help your son, you, me, or any other individual who may be needy.

It was set up to give the government justification to buy from farmers. When farms were predominately run by families and inidividuals then it could be said that the food stamp program (as well as the school lunch program) actually helped those farmers. However, now that most our farms are run by major corperations, that can no longer be said.

So, if a person protests the huge profits of major corperations and rich investors, but then demands more money goes into programs such as food stamps, they are basically protesting their own cause celeb.

Clear enough?

As for anyone who does receive food stamps, once on the program, and the credit is added to their card, they have the right to spend them any way they want (within the limits of the program). If your son wants steak, or rice dishes, more power to him. However, the fact that his family, friends and private organizations are doing so little that he needs the government reinforces my point. If there weren't food stamps, would you, your family, and his friends let him starve? My guess is you wouldn't, because I have no reason to question your relationship with your son. The fact that there are food stamps (and other programs available) means that you don't have to.

and please don't think I am just talking about you and your son. I am talking about everyone who knows someone who needs help, but doesn't because the government (read taxpayers) are doing it for them.

Make no mistake, anyone (including myself) who finds themself in need of welfare programs that they didn't pay into or work towards, needs them because the people in their lives are willing to let the taxpayers take up our slack.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with you in theory, but I differ in the same way you and I always seem to. You have to understand that we have an entire class of Americans that are hopelessly "reliant" on the social system we have. By reliant I mean they simply rufuse to do without them. Even if some people just fence them off to others, they'll STILL be outraged that they are losing what they fence.

You think that they would do without it, either by bucking up and seeing to themselves, or through private charities. I don't believe that for a moment. I think what you would have are mass protests with lots of welfare and foodstamp folks wasting away on the lawns of governor's mansions, and the press eating it up.

In the end we'd put all the programs back, probably with more perks for the lazy, and it would take 50 years for anyone to attempt to end them again. What has to be done is a slow weening. People have to be made to earn the food stamps in some way, and the requirements for getting them should shave people off the top of the list a little at a time over a decade until only the truly impoverished get them, and then only temporarily.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I feed my family of 7 on less than $200 a month; $275 a month for three of you is not chump change.


For two people=275$, my sister and her two daughters live on 200$.I admire you being able to be able to stretch things and support your family.

I am saying that those who call for the government to put more money into social programs, but don't lift a finger or donate their own money or means to those they say they care about are L-A-Z-Y.


I disagree with you in a way, what about those who are on social programs, and are barely able to be 'adequate' (think basic everything,no cable,internet,etc...) Sure they might want to help others, and want social programs to change, so that they and their family (if they have a family to care for) could be better off, what if they are unable to,hmmm...they are not lazy, they are surviving...
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think the main problem is that we have people out there that are lazy, those who do not wish to work and earn a decent living (decent can be defined by each persons own terms)If we could take them out, then there would remain those that struggle, but yet are unable,due to whatever circumstances, to meet terms ends...IMO
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
I mean can you IMAGINE what Senate Democrats would do with these leeches? How many "Little Jimmy Cornbread is starving in Podunk Appalachia tonight..." would we hear every day?

The ONLY calling card the Democrats have is the false belief that were it not for them the bottom 20% of America would starve. They would NEVER allow anyone to prove that people can do without their programs, because it would invalidate their existance.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I disagree with you in a way, what about those who are on social programs, and are barely able to be 'adequate' (think basic everything,no cable,internet,etc...) Sure they might want to help others, and want social programs to change, so that they and their family (if they have a family to care for) could be better off, what if they are unable to,hmmm...they are not lazy, they are surviving...


That is why I added qualifiers like "their means" and "lift a finger". There are plenty of ways to help others that have nothing to do with money. Of course, there are people who can't afford to help others, and there are plenty of people who spend 24/7 just trying to get by for themselves. Yes, I will add them to the qualifiers of exception to the "lazy". Since they aren't part of my point, I have no problem with that.



Bakerstreet. I agree with you, it would take at least a generation to ween people off of all the government programs. It would also take a hefty amount of tax breaks and other things to get private charities up to speed to take the load.

In the long run, I think it would be well worth it to do, private organizations are in a much better position to have the recipients who are able work or eventually pay off the aid.

I know my church has an extensive welfare program. I am on it myself. Me and my family couldn't possibly do enough work at fair market wages to pay back everything we have received, but every month me, my wife and our bishop discuss services we can perform for the congregation and our community. It is a token "working off", but it is expected from both our church, and ourselves.