Food Stamp Explosion

Lorenzo the Magnificent wrote:

But in "public" life, if someone has a right (and I'm trying to use the word accurately) to one penny of my money, then by what reason does he not have a right to 50% or 100% of my brains, labor, productivity, or just dumb luck? Is my life no longer then my own to distribute its fruits as I see fit? Isn't that the very definition of individuality and autonomy?

You are operating on the liberatarian myth that there is no such thing as a community, that we all achieve every dollar of wealth completely on our own without any assistance from the government. But the reality is that you have been just as awash in other people's money as the food stamp recipient. Why do you get to take my money to drive on interstate highways I never use? Why do you get to take my money to get an education at public schools? Why do you get to take my money to teach at public schools? Why do you get to take my money to fly on an airplane that gets where it is going thanks to FAA air traffic controllers? Why do you get to take my money to use the internet that was invented by the defense department?

We have food stamps because no one should go without food in a nation as wealthy as the United States. We have food stamps because American workers are forced to compete with workers in the third world who can live off of a dollar a day. We have food stamps because they subsidize corporate profits by supplementing poverty wages (Walmart's business model is built on a labor force on public assistance).

SserPrun95 wrote:

One of my classmates and friend in medical school is on foodstamps. His situation is no different than the rest of us who have taken out loans, in fact his are significantly less since he recieves minorty scholarships. The thought of applying for foodstamps never crossed the rest of our minds and I know even if it had our parents would be furious with us for accepting them. It's just a mindset where inner city kids who grow up around these handouts see nothing out of the ordinary about receiving them.

a) really, you have to believe me, it's not only black people who receive food stamps and other government assistance

b) do you claim tax credits? refundable tax credits? are these "handouts" that you are morally obliged to refuse?

c) do you accept federally funded student loans?

d) we have government programs to help alleviate the pain of poverty, including food stamps. there is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary or immoral about receiving such benefits when one legitimately qualifies.

if you believe that one should refuse food stamps based on some subjective sense of "need" that is different than program requirements, then i hope your answers to (b) and (c) above are no. i don't see how you could otherwise reconcile your feelings.

What is a better definition or example of "community," me sending money to DC to take a huge cut and eventually send to a family in Newark, or me giving $10 to a kid who didn't have breakfast or lunch?

Secondly, I'll gladly pay my fair share of those expenditures that are Constitutional and from which I get a tangible benefit, not some nebulous and inchoate feeling that everyone is better off when Person X has dinner or Person Y gets heating oil.

Lorenzo, I can tell you are decent so I will spare you the hellhounds.

Morality is very important, even outside of couched questions. Our principles should guide us, and the sense I have is our holy grail is money, more money, as much money as we can carry. This seems a hollow triumph of Graeco-Roman cultural ascendency, no?

Entitlement to the property of another is of course wrong, but taxation is a price we pay for civilization, so the question becomes one of balancing the expenditure of that tax money, which leads us back to morality and our choices.

As you know the pro forma argument from the conservative side is that private charity is sufficient to mitigate socio-economic disparities. And while it is good you contribute privately, you and people like you don't exist in sufficient numbers to eliminate the need for a social safety net. And if it were not for that net's defenders, Liberals, the goal would be made on the money side of the field, once again. Liberals must defend against that happening so long as our moral priority is enrichment at the expense of human suffering.

Thoth, please clarify your position.

Are you saying that the 42.9 million Americans receiving food stamps would otherwise be experiencing "human suffering?"

If so, how did it come to pass that as our government as grown to its highest level in dollar terms, number of employees, and number of laws, in its history, still has 42.9 million people who need its help to eat?

I am not really old, but I do remember the 1960s and 1970s. There was poverty, but nowhere near 42.9 million people who had the government buy their food for them to avoid starvation.

What happened? How can we fix it?

Thoth, I think total charitable giving, taking into account fluctuations, avarages around $310 billion dollars annually. People often think that even though they beleive themselves to be selfless, or loving, or whatever, others aren't.

I beleive that would go up CONSIDERABLY if people 1) knew where their money was going, and 2) felt it was being well-used, and 3) felt like their "charity" wasn't simply paying onerous taxes on April 15th and being nickeled and dimed the other 364 days.

I also beleive I should learn how to spell believe.

Recently my wife and I cut our ties with some of our closest friends over issues relating to this.

They have one child who was paid for by the welfare system. He was a surprise so I looked past it. About two years ago the husband decided he was going to go back to school (which is great because it will allow him to get a better job) the thing about it is that his wife makes about $35000 well where I live they get food stamps, free day care, free health care. His son has asthma and he is collecting unemployment because he basically started a job and tried to get fired. He "looks" for a job but doesn't want one. He told me that he is taking his time with school because he gets the pell grant as well and in the end he makes more money this way than if he was working a job. He plans on trying to stay in school for at least 6 years taking the minimum hours possible. Oh and my favorite part his wife is pregnant again and they won't pay a dime, for this kid either and they plan to have two more in the next 4 years that they won't pay for.

All this while my wife and I work. I am a teacher she is a social worker and we pay $1000 in daycare a month for our two children and $400 a month for their health insurance and who knows how much on food and other health related costs.

random a hole wrote:

My formerly unemployed friend had them, he now has a job, the card still had some value, we got a nice tenderloin to throw on the grill when watching a game.

Thanks a lot asshole.

I have a friend who is an alcoholic and a single dad, who lives on unemployment because he can and it is easy. The guy is a talented programmer who can get jobs very easily, but he'd rather stay home and get loaded.

A lot of these government programs subsidize this kind of behavior.

The problem is, people see money going to bailout rich bankers as well, so they figure why not work the system?

The solution is to end the government trough for one and all.

The food stamp program could provide emergency food, such as beans and rice and canned veggies, but not vouchers. This would be much cheaper and still keep people from starving.

Some of the comments here mention greater economic imbalances than those in the food stamp explosion. I understand that the murder next door is more important than the toothache the guy across the street has, and always will be. But, don't you eventually have to deal with the toothache, especially if it keeps getting worse?

In other words, when did the existence of the biggest problem become a valid reason for ignoring all other problems?

Yes. If you don't eat, you starve. If you live on the street, you are not very likely to eat. That is suffering by definition.

To answer your question: the growth of the government is not the only factor creating our present predicament. This is the simplistic thinking of today's right who seem incapable of synthesizing for themselves our country's history, so in a very, very rough sense, let me point out a few milestones on the road to here where people can and do starve in a nation of wealth (all dates are approximate):

1. End of WWII - American Dream backed by GI bill - All is good.

2. 1960s - Vietnam & Nixon Power Quake - beginning of American skepticism and distrust of government.

3. 1970s - Beginning of professionalization of middle-class and end beginning of the end of self-sufficiency. Emergence of super stores altering local economies. End of small town America.

4. 1980s - Reagan and Wall street popularize greed ethos as new version of American Dream. Emergence of international competition with Japan. Beginning of end for US manufacturing base as offshoring begins. Celebrity and tabloid culture launches with MTV, Enquirer, etc. American nuclear family begins to crumble.

5. 1990s - Continued deregulation by Greenspan. Decade of consumption. Illusion of prosperity and then Dot Com Bust. Thai real estate bubble bursts and richochets around the world but warning is ignored. OJ Simpson trial signals victory of celebrity culture over critical civic culture. World trade agreements proliferate and globalization explodes. U.S. exports surge and dollar strengthens. Powder keg waiting to happen.

6. 2000s - 9/11. Overreaction leads to birth of increased domestic surveillance and fear-mongering. End of Depression era safeguards, banker greed leads to poor quality lending and over-leverage of credit market. Housing bubble is created and amplified by exotic derivative exposure setting up 2008-2010 brouhaha. Inflated housing market finally blows up. Decade of excess consumption through credit blows up. Offshoring rampant. Treasury is held hostage by bankers then ransacked by outgoing administration and its buddies. People are facing living on the streets.

7. 2008+ - Election of African American president with backing of enthusiastic support of progressive majority. Right wing skepticism+angry white voter who is poorly educated and bewildered manifests as anti-intellectualism. Republican takes advantage of this gullibility and realigns working class interests against own interests as campaign to seize White House in 2012; party and conservative cable news obfuscate using scapegoating of a cosmopolitan president dealt a crappy hand, and by using racial and elitism fear-mongering. Minorities voices, and liberal concerns become visible nationwide but are marginalized by McCarthyrite bullying (the cry of Socialism). Greed ethos is the American Dream and behind every monied Holy Grail and despite all evidence to the contrary, the poor provide socialized assistance to corporations, banks, and in 2010, through tax cuts for the wealthy in hopes of a crumb falling to the floor for them.

8. 2010 - President attempts to triangulate a la Clinton, not realizing his mandate to restore America to the progressive country it once was, and allows the plutocracy to entrench itself with, incredibly, working class support. President underestimates his foes' intransigence. President ticks off his progressive base

9. 2011 - Progressives dress down the President and compel him to move left and restore the American Dream. OR Conservatives prevail and the very wealthy continue historical trend since 1980s of taking home a greater percentage of national wealth with no trickle down to the working class. Middle class is further eviscerated. Anger poor whites will do worse. Middle class real income will stay level as it has since 1980s.

10. 2016 - This is wild peculation only: Minorities will field finally true field of progressive candidates, or 2 new parties will emerge, a Tea Party offshoot, and Democratic offshoot.

Okay that is American political, cultural, social, economic history from 1945 to today.

I bet 40 million+ of those people also have cell phones

As for how to fix this:

1. Mobilize progressives and their friends. Leverage networks across the country. Take advantage of our being dispersed and having countrywide networks.

2. Take control of the message and shame those who would leave others hungry, or sick, or homeless. There is enough for our need, just not our greed. Get that word out.

3. We must reorient our consumption to sustainable levels. The American Dream was not always about consumption. It was about living well enough to enjoy life with loved ones.

4. We must argue with everyone that superior virtue of choosing human welfare over money.

5. We must continue to educate those who would even work against their own well being.

Unless a suitable amount of people choose money over human welfare, then dispersion of other people's money can't happen. That's not ideology; that's math. Someone has to make money for it to be given (or taken) away.

And if someone makes just enough for his or her own needs (as defined by whom?) then those who have nothing will continue to have nothing.

I fixed the problem. Food stamps no longer exist and haven't for a few years. USDA does have a program called SNAP, which used to be called food stamps. But since they are no longer food stamps, no one in America is on them. I did it!

End of thread

Frank Dux

Thoth wrote:

As for how to fix this:

1. Mobilize progressives and their friends. Leverage networks across the country. Take advantage of our being dispersed and having countrywide networks.

2. Take control of the message and shame those who would leave others hungry, or sick, or homeless. There is enough for our need, just not our greed. Get that word out.

3. We must reorient our consumption to sustainable levels. The American Dream was not always about consumption. It was about living well enough to enjoy life with loved ones.

4. We must argue with everyone that superior virtue of choosing human welfare over money.

5. We must continue to educate those who would even work against their own well being.

Is the United States still a democratic republic in your plan? It sounds very totalitarian.

Some of the most repressive governments want their tactics ignored and to have people focus on the nobility of their goals.

Your model doesn't have any mention of toleration of dissent, voting on methods or goals, or the freedoms accorded to those who believe differently. Progressives have a great many freedoms in the United States, more than in many countries. What kind of freedoms do non-progressives have in your model?

Math as a tool of analysis is just that, a tool.Ideology, as a means of making doctrinaire choices, is a means of shutting down analysis of fundamentals.The question is: how much scarcity actually exists where there is not enough to go around; and how much scarcity is manufactured by ideology?The corollary to this is:whether the degree of scarcity we currently assume is accurate or not, is the playing field level, and if not, should a fight occur to level it?I question seriously whether scarcity or greed drives our economic and moral choices regarding human welfare and the distribution of wealth.But I am 200% the playing field is not even. If it was, there is not need to debate who makes enough and whom is determining this. People will make what they can and enough surely.

Lorenzo the Magnificent wrote:

Unless a suitable amount of people choose money over human welfare, then dispersion of other people's money can't happen. That's not ideology; that's math. Someone has to make money for it to be given (or taken) away.

And if someone makes just enough for his or her own needs (as defined by whom?) then those who have nothing will continue to have nothing.

I meant 200% certain.

Regarding the totalitarian question above. Of course, non-progressives will have a voice. You're so cheeky.

What I advocate is a questioning of fundamentals as a means of deprogramming. A large swath of the American electorate literally drinks the Kool Aid of Fox pundits and Rush and conservative ideology. Both progressive and conservative ideology should be reviewed. An honest exploration of the American character should be conducted and the question asked: have we strayed?

Republican's used to be the progressive force is this country. The Democrats had their era too. They look the same these days don't they? Regardless, was the idea of essential American decency a myth like the 'good ol' days' or like the romance of 'the Old West', or has the average American always been sympathetic to their Robber Baron elite? To me this is an interesting question since exploiters and privateers and monopolists have existed throughout American history. If this is a trend, then shouldn't progressives get a moral message out that the truth, or myth of American exceptionalism (of the decency of the American character), is to be restored. That to me doesn't sound like totalitarianism at all. That sounds like redemption.