« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Good News: Food Stamp Use Soaring; Stigma Gone

Good News if You're Building a Social Democracy, Anyway

Update: The Times piece quoted here skates too quickly over the questions of how one qualifies for food stamps, and what requirements are imposed on recipients (particularly with regard to work). Put briefly, most food stamp recipients appear to be required to work, but waivers exist, some still receive benefits without working, and (of course) fraud dilutes the requirements. Check out the comment section for clarifications.

I suppose this is just a testament to how well Obama’s economic recovery plan is going: 1 in 8 Americans is now on food stamps – and 1 in 4 children are. I remember the bad old days of the Bush economy, when millions of Americans were forced to rely on private sector jobs to pay for their food.

Those benighted days are past: now more and more Americans get their food money from Uncle Sam. And who knows – the way things are going, someday soon we all may wind up on the dole:

It has grown so rapidly in places so diverse that it is becoming nearly as ordinary as the groceries it buys. More than 36 million people use inconspicuous plastic cards for staples like milk, bread and cheese, swiping them at counters in blighted cities and in suburbs pocked with foreclosure signs.

Virtually all have incomes near or below the federal poverty line, but their eclectic ranks testify to the range of people struggling with basic needs. They include single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave pantries bare…

From the ailing resorts of the Florida Keys to Alaskan villages along the Bering Sea, the program is now expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.


At the rate we’re going, 16 million more people will be on food stamps by the end of Barack Obama’s first term. And don’t worry: the Obama White House is doing its best to make sure that happens:

Although the program is growing at a record rate, the federal official who oversees it would like it to grow even faster.

“I think the response of the program has been tremendous,” said Kevin Concannon, an under secretary of agriculture, “but we’re mindful that there are another 15, 16 million who could benefit.”

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is disgusting. The measure of a successful administration will be how many Americans don’t rely on food stamps, not how many more can be added to the rolls. It’s stunning that the program would be overseen by someone with so poor an understanding of priorities.

Furthermore, the federal government is making a mistake by imposing no work requirements on receipt of this assistance. Because money is fungible, there is little difference between food stamps (or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – SNAP) and welfare. While it should be available for those whose subsistence depends on it, it is appropriate to protect the taxpayer interest by imposing a work requirement on those who are able to work.

Indeed, the New York Times even notes that the program has lax requirements:

So far, few elected officials have objected to the program’s growth. Almost 90 percent of beneficiaries nationwide live below the poverty line (about $22,000 a year for a family of four). But a minor tempest hit Ohio’s Warren County after a woman drove to the food stamp office in a Mercedes-Benz and word spread that she owned a $300,000 home loan-free. Since Ohio ignores the value of houses and cars, she qualified.

Congress is spending tens of billions of dollars annually on this program, and increasing funds dramatically – even as its rate of use is at an all-time high. Is it too much to ask that wealthy Americans not be able to take advantage of loopholes to steal from the taxpayers?

Update: Check out Mickey Kaus’s take on this, as well.

Cross-posted to TheConservatives.com

COMMENTS

  • USNJIMRET
    • janis

      to eat, but was just availing herself of them because she qualified due to overly generous standards, then she’s stealing from someone who might legitimately need this benefit to feed their family. At some point, the benefits will have to either be cut back or the standards will have to be more stringent. The list of food stamp recipients, just like the list of those on unemployment benefits, cannot grow indefinitely.

      It’s like seeing people in Tennessee, where I live, who have gamed the system to get themselves free medical care through TennCare while they live in a $300,000 house and drive luxury cars, take vacations to exotic places, and then moan about having to pay $5.00 per prescription when it was previously free. That’s just wrong, no matter how you wish to characterize it as “well, they paid taxes, so they get to claim the benefits, too.”

      Are we not to value personal responsibility anymore, or is that just another victim of “well, the guidelines say I qualify, so why not take the handouts?”

      • izoneguy

        If she really did own a Mercedes.

        http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/programs/foodstamps/estimator/index.html

        • mom2oneson

          cars that you see with a food stamp card are 1. Buying for someone else (parent, elderly neighbor or 2. Driving their parents or boyfriend’s car. It’s not their name. She has no ability to sell it and go buy food instead of using food stmaps. It’s not an assett in her name.

          • eburke

            less fortunate than themselves is now antiquated?

            I understand, mom, that you’ve seen things from the ‘other side’, but one of the problems we have that has contributed to the unraveling of the social fabric in America is that we have off-loaded responsibility for those less fortunate from churches and family members on to the government.

            And don’t think this comes from someone whose won life’s lottery. There was a 3 year span of time when life’s challenges left my family of *seven* (wife & 5 kids) living on an annual income of less than $30,000. We never took a dime of federal assistance, no food stamps, nothing. We survived by being frugal (Christmas presents one year consisted of Mrs Burke and I buying a $7 Christmas tree from Target for each other) and w/a modicum of help from our family and friends. We never went hungry, and never went homeless.

            The government dole is insidious in many ways but one manifestation of what this ultimately does can be seen in the African-American family. I would suggest that if you haven’t already, read some of Thomas Sowell’s writings where he discusses the state of the Black family when he was growing up pre-government handout but in the midst of *true* and pernicious racism vs where it is today post-The Great Society.

            This mindset that the government can somehow provide a safety net *and* maintain a strong social fabric has been disproven by a raft of statistics (George Gilder comes to the forefront of my mind). I find it disgusting that there are people who have the ability to care for their family members but pawn it off on the government. It’s impact on our social structure is devastating.

          • mom2oneson

            I agree with you 100%. I guess my point was that the car wasn’t hers, she isn’t owning the car and recieving help. The way it’s set up, the government does not allow owning a 2010 luxury car and getting food stamps.

            I know what you mean re holidays, I can’t stand the whiners all of a sudden about Christmas! If people are worried about Christmas things are probably not that bad, I’m very frugal too and agree with you on tightening up and making do. OTOH Sometimes there is nothing to cut back on. $30,000 a year will stay pay for shelter even if it’s “cozy” :) , power, food and some type of transportation. Unless your in projects $4,000 a year won’t do the same. Sometimes more cash or income is needed not to be homeless or hungry. I’ve had to not get $30 worth of food because I miscalculated and didn’t have the $1.30 out of pocket it costs me because I calculated my coupons wrong. I was being very frugal and I oftne help people better off than I am with learning about coupons in the store but it didn’t matter. Sometimes you need cash. Or we couldn’t go to the library because we didn’t have the $5 round trip bus fare. I’ve missed thousands of dollars of work this year due to dental problems that made me ill. Not buying new clothing or using coupons for food didn’t give me money for a dentist. I agree with you and it does sicken me that people don’t look to cut back and it seems like most churches are very encouraging of people applying for assistance. There is a criticism if you don’t but are elgible for it from the people in church based charities. It’s crazy they should be encouraging self sufficiency even if it means more struggle. Tthe LDS church encourages people to be more self suffcient, they are the only ones I’ve seen that do that. I admire you both for doing what you did. :)

            One thing I will say about churches, I am a Christian and I think they “should be” the first in line outside of family but they are the WORST most out of touch people. I had my feelings hurt a lot. Recently I read a review of a movie, a relative watched it and called me crying saying it reminded her of my son and I. The review said something about the people around the main character being sheltered and not understanding. When I read that I let go of a lot of the hostility and hurt feelings I had, it struck me that they just had no clue. Families are athe real safety net though, Even when people make mistakes vs life happening to them, with a family they can recover much easier.It’s so sad families are unraveling and with birth control having smaller families. There are even less aunts and uncles to pick up the slack now. :( I am sure people with stable households will be taking in more and more friends children in the coming years and being subsititue parents.

            That is the first time I read the those two thoughts together, the gov safety net and strong families not existing. Thank you so much for sharing that.

          • eburke

            that there is a role that government can play but it should be as a last resort, not a first one, and for God’s sake, we shouldn’t be *encouraging* people to do so. *Any* government aid should *always* be given with the clear paradigm that the only money government has to give has first been taken from those who earned it (and with 80+ percent of the taxes being paid by 20% of the wage earners, and with the top one percent paying in the neighborhood of 35% of the taxes, that’s a few of the people *outside* the wagon pulling everyone *inside* the wagon)

            And, trust me, I understand the money thing. Didn’t want to sound whiny but one of those 3 years the total income was less than $20,000 and it was the year that my wife got pregnant before I lost my job (else I wouldn’t have been allowed in the same room with her :-) , and with the loss of the job we lost my insurance so our youngest was born sans insurance. So, I’ve been in the ‘not sure where the next dime is coming from’ thing.

            Anyway, the whole experience has made me leery of those crying ‘poor’ as I see them buy items that we *never* even *thought* about purchasing when times were tough. And, frankly, I’ve become tired of the ‘entitlement’ mentality that comes with, well, entitlement programs. Things have improved substantially for us but it came after both of us working our keesters off and we’re *still* digging out of the hole that time period put us in.

            Don’t get me wrong, mom, I greatly admire you for the ‘suck it up’ mentality you seem to have and all you’ve done to raise your son. In fact, it’s good to be reminded that there *are* actually folks out there who are in genuine need (my pastor once said, in the middle of our financial travails, that being poor isn’t a sin, it’s just a mite unhandy.) My hackles just get raised by the constant whining about what a horrible country this is and how this is ‘the worst economy since the Great Depression’ ad nauseum….as I watch a sold-out Ford Field during the Lions-Packers game in a state that’s supposedly in even worse shape than the rest of the country.

            My folks lived through the Great Depression and from the stories they’ve told me I’m pretty sure there weren’t a whole lot of folks with the kind of ‘disposable income’ we see all around us (kinda like the story the AP had today about the struggling single mom who was whining about how tough things are and that this Christmas she’s only buying those things which are a necessity…and then mentioned that those ‘necessities’ included a GPS for her car, and CDs for her kids. Give me an ever-lovin’ break)

          • mom2oneson

            You answered my other question I posted below too. :)

            I didn’t mean to sound whiney either. :) I was just trying to give real experience exmaples of how cutting back isn’t always enough. Re the no insurance, I remember my youth pastor saying how they finally owned their five year old when they finished paying for his birth. :)
            It raises my hackles too. I’m always saying a like a house is not a need, shelter (apartment) is, I get so annoyed I have to take a break from even the internet apart from work. If people were that bad off they would be talking about no power or getting evicted from their weekly motel not Christmas..it is crazy.

          • mom2oneson

            I didn’t mean to make a joke or anything about the no insurance. I don’t have any either. I just remembered about my youth pastor when you said it. I dated a man who’s brother lost his house when his son was born with no insurance and had a NICU stay. I know it can be long term and serious. :(
            That is awesome you both were able to start digging out, what a great example to your children.They will never feel they can’t get out of something after your example.

  • USNJIMRET
  • mom2oneson

    Chase contracts for the food stamp card and they are on the East Coast time. The parking lot will be awfully full than other nights.

  • mom2oneson

    I’m a big fan of your diaries so am hesitant to post but there are some incorrect things in that diary. The value of a home if where the person lives in not counted “against” the person but a car is. Saying things like that only contributes to the “welare queen myth” and it’s wrong to do so. A car above a certain value will make someone inelgible for food stamps. I don’t live in OH but that would definately surprise me if they didn’t account the value of a car. I’ve recieved food stamps in 2 states and all calculated my cars value when I had one.

    You are incorrect about the no work requirement too. This may vary from state to state, I am not sure, but I believe anyone with a child over the age of six is required to work. I know stay at home mothers that refuse to be employed, the family recieves food stamps but the mothers allotment is “sanctioned” because she refuses to be employed. I only know a few people that recieve food stamps that do not work. The ones that don’t are stay at home mothers with employed husbands or husbands in college. All of the single mothers I know work at least part-time and most full time. I know a few single people that recieve them that work part or full time too.

    The only group that really gets a break is military of having more income than others because some of their things are paid for but it’s not taken into account and they get non-income money. They are better off than most recieving food stamps but even then I wouldn’t consider them “wealthy.” just they have their basic needs met (housing, healthcare, food, crisis help) without worry.

    Why not post the real income and assett limits. Things like this just upset me a lot. I think your a lot better diarist (is that word ;) ) than this. Your always articulate and give good information.

    I posted last Feb or March how much the states systems are overloaded because of the rise in applications and caseloads. Their phone systems and tehcnology haven’t been able to keep up with the incase. I posted how the cashier at Wal-Mart said what an increase she saw too of many that she thought would never be on it. She had been a cashier for a long time.

    Food stamps have always been an under utililzed program by the people who are entitled to them. They view this as a “success” because they might see more people using them. They think it helps with nutrition and health. Just my two cents of why they might view it like that.

    I think we should write more about how the safety net fails. There is a lot more homeless now and kids sleeping on relatives or friends parents couches. They may not have the right papers to apply or get benefits for them. That is one example. Another would be to the people that fall through the cracks due to the system being overloaded now too. Technology is great and more effecient but when people can’t resolve a problem and need a human they are out of luck and it shouldn’t be like that.

    • mom2oneson

      my internet went out so I am retyping my kowalski! My comments at the bottom are in context of talking about the program existing since the diary is criticizing it.

      I think food stamps may hurt the poor especially those that do not use it because it makes food prices higher. I think maybe a program like Florida’s emergency housing program would be better it is a no more than once every 12 months assistance for a set dollar amount. It’s not that expensive to buy a year supply of some basic dried foods that would keep anyone (except maybe those that can’t chew and need formula or ensure) from starving.

    • Brian Faughnan

      I don’t have the requirements – otherwise I would post them.

      With all due respect, I think you need to read the article more carefully. It is not I who asserted that there are no work requirements; it is Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. I think it’s safe to assume the New York Times would not print this assertion of his if they thought it was in error.

      Furthermore, it is not I who asserted that ownership of a car does not count toward determining eligibility, it is the New York Times. And the article does make clear that there are different rules from state to state. If you know any of this to be incorrect, it would be helpful to all if you have a citation of the fact.

      The larger point remains: it is a serious problem if the Obama administration thinks it’s a good thing to expand dependence. The goal should be to liberate all Americans from the curse of dependence, not to force more to rely on the taxpayers for handouts.

      • mom2oneson

        but you posted it. I know you didn’t come up with it. You posted it like it was true though. I’ve seen a lot of misinformation about public assistance, because it’s in the NYT doesn’t mean it’s true.

        For the last point even under Bush and Reagan did they did a lot of “advertising” to get people to apply for benefits. The way it’s set up it’s based on income alone. They advertise for WIC too. Go into some low income areas or listen to certain radio stations and you can see and hear it. Again the idea is it will improve nutrition.

        Here are some general guidelines but some things will be state specific:

        http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/faqs.htm#7

        http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/faqs.htm#26

        • mom2oneson

          nt

        • Brian Faughnan

          Thanks for your clarifications. I agree that it is not as simple as the Times piece says, but after your examples and further research, I don’t see anything wrong in their report.

          I think you’ll agree that being allowed to own a home – apparently without regard to value – could be a big loophole. If you can own a home free and clear, I don’t think you should be entitled to a taxpayer giveaway.

          Further, according to the SSA at least (http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10101.html), you are allowed to own a car ‘depending on how it is used.’ Is that a narrow benefit or a broad one? I don’t find a clear examination of the issue.

          I’d be interested to know more about the work requirements. Obviously there is not a blanket requirement – as you acknowledge when you say you know people who do not work but receive reduced benefits. This site also says the requirements are flexible: http://www.workworld.org/wwwebhelp/food_stamp_program.htm#Food_Stamp_Program_Work_Rules Again, this is something I’d like to see more about.

          There’s also the matter of food stamp fraud – people who receive money without meeting the guidelines. A quick google search suggests the cost of this fraud could easily be in the billions annually.

          All things considered, I think it’s foolish for a program like this to exist at all. If the federal government is to provide assistance to those who need it, let it be with one transparent check. It makes it much harder to ensure proper accountability if there are multiple programs providing fungible dollars.

          Further, the idea that our goal should be to try to sign up as many people as possible is noxious. The liberal Democrats running this country seek to preserve their power and build a lasting social democracy by ensuring that as many people as possible get a check from the government. Once there are enough dependents, who’ll be in favor of less government?

          Even if the appointee who runs this program wants to get benefits to everyone who is eligible, he should still recognize that expanding the number of users is still a sign of the failure of the administration. There’s no conflict between trying to get help to those who need it now, and recognizing that the more beneficiaries, the greater is the proof that something is wrong.

          If I were in charge of the program, I might want all eligible people to take advantage of it, but I would still regard every recipient as a failure of the administration’s economic policy.

          • mom2oneson

            The two errors I see are the no work requirements and the not counting the value of cars.

            I don’t think anyone should be entitled to tax payer money. I know if it’s a home you live in, the value isn’t counted. I’ve seen what you mean and it’s not necessarily need (like they have other options like sell a house) that makes someone eglible or not it’s income and assets and whoever wrote the law excluded the primary residence.

            For owning a car, I know the value is counted. For what it’s used for means if it’s used for work or household transportation. It has to be under a certain dollar amount at least in both states I’ve lived in. I know a lady that worked a minimum wage job but she got the new Jeep in her divorce so she wasn’t elgible. She used the car to go to and from work but it was still too valuable. Now that could be something state specific, I don’t know.

            I’m not a food stamp worker but here are the work requirements I know of.
            Anyone with a child over the age of six has to work at least 20 hours a week to continue recieving benefits. Again I don’t know if it’s state specific or not. I don’t know how it works for say someone that has as seven year old but recieves cash assistance, obviously they are not employed, but to recieve cash they are probably signed up under a plan with the welfare to work office. I know they are a lot of exemptions and extra benefits for people recieving and leaving cash assistance under the guise of welfare to work.I think for some they can also volunteer. I know a lady that volunteers at a food bank to keep her food stamps. The last two things, cash assistance transition and volunteering regarding food stamps are state specific. The other work exemption is for students, if they have “work-study” on their FAFSA award letter they can get them, they don’t actually have to be working it though. That info about students is from a few years ago, it could be different now.

            If someone with no children or a child over 5 does not work their benefit amount is sanctioned. They do not recieve the benefits like I mentioned with the stay at home mothers I know. The other people in their household can still recieve it. So if it’s 2 parents with 3 children and a household that would be entitled for the full benefit amount, instead of recieving $793.00 per month they would recieve $668 per month because the mother’s benefit is “sanctioned” for not complying with work requirements. They will not cut the children or husband’s benefit only the mothers. So the non worker isn’t receiving food stamps. If it was a single person then obviously nobody else in the household would be recieving them.
            We’ve experienced the same type of sanctioning for a different issue but it was an error on the state’s side. I complied but the paperwork was not enetered into the computer, no amount of me calling or emailing the state got it resolved, so our benefit amount was for one person (my son) for those periods instead of two .

            I hope that explains it, the person not working isn’t getting a reduced amount, they aren’t getting anything at all.

            For things like fraud I thjink there is most seperating of households that aren’t as the big loophole. The only thing that seperates households is a piece of a paper saying you do not buy and prepare food together. Let’s say a girl is 18 and has one child. She is an only child and lives with her parents that make $60,000 year. She works 10 hours per week and brings home $400 per month. She signs a statement saying she buys and prepares food sepeartely and another shelter expense that she “rents” a room for $200 per month. So she would be entitled to $367 in food stamps plus WIC for herself and her child.
            I knew another girl that did the same except it was her boyfriend. He had a GREAT job on an oil rigg, he made great money.
            Another area is direct payment of bills. A third party can pay bills without it counting as income or assets.
            Another area for improvement IMO is the benefit amounts for very young children. Most recieve WIC for formula. I just looked up fungible and I guess that is what you are talking about too. This is where you see a young mother with three kids under five give buying shrimp and irbeye. There is no way she can use up the entire benefit amount buying not expensive food. One of the small reform I would say increase the allotment for olderr teenagers and reduce it for children under three.
            All that said the majority of people I know that use food stamps would have a hard time buying food without them.. A lot better food choices could be made but they is probably not the income there in the first place. OTOH the gov buying food makes the prices higher so who knows what it would cost if they didn’t exist. Most of the poeple I know work and don’t live with parents or a boyfriend. I just wanted to give you an example of what I’ve seen as possible loopholes.

            I have mixed feelings about the program too. Basic food can be bought for very little and I think the program makes prices much higher. I always want to write a diary on how it hurts the poor because it makes prices higher.

            I think the concept of expidted food stamps or help is a good one, more than long term kind of susbdy. FL has a housing program that is $400 once per year, I think something like that would be good. It helps in a crisis but it’s not a long term type of subsidy. There is a need for food when your hungry, it sucks to be preoccupied with needing sugar so badly you can’t focus anything else. It’s not something goes away like a headache with sleep or attention elsewhere.I don’t think it necessarily should come from government though, just saying there is a need for people to have food if they don’t.

            I agree about the no conflict. Your so articulate that is amazing how you expressed that. Thanks for writing that and seperating the two things. :)

          • edintexas

            Mom, I know you stated you are familiar with the requirements of the program in 2 states, but you also admitted that you do not live in Ohio and have not qualified for food stamps in that state. So why do you insist that you “know” that the value of a car is counted in Ohio, and that the newspaper article is wrong about that? I understand the vehicle value is counted in Texas, but that doesn’t convince me that I know the value is counted in Ohio. If you have a verifiable source for your knowledge, I think you would be well served to put it in your post to avoid the appearance that your statement regarding Ohio requirements is just opinion.

          • mom2oneson

            and it was clear I was speaking from the experience of the two states I lived in and OH is not one of them.

            My paragraph here “For owning a car, I know the value is counted. For what it?s used for means if it?s used for work or household transportation….”

            was a response to this paragraph here about what I’ve seen with cars being counted.

            “Further, according to the SSA at least (http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10101.html), you are allowed to own a car ?depending on how it is used.? Is that a narrow benefit or a broad one? I don?t find a clear examination of the issue.

            I was speaking from the states I have experience with. I apoplogize if I didn’t make that clear enough. When I wrote to say I wasn’t a food stamp worker I was saying I don’t all the rules even for the states I’ve lived in. It’s all opinion.

          • mom2oneson

            answer? Should we encourage people to utilize government assistance if the are elgible or do we encourag people not to use it even if it means more struggle?

          • astrolite

            We have two devlopments that are blighted by foreclosure most of the homes are less than two years old! Our sherriff was overheard trying to get money rom FEMA to beef up the patrols in those two districts–Because—- FEMA was going to import 1600 of New Orleans Finest- drug dealers, murders, addicts , thieves, home invaders and the usual people whio hang around them! You remember after being taken by Houston, the Houston crime rate multiplyed 400% and after FEMA decided to cut off the free money 2 years later—-they told the city that if that happened thay would burn Houston down! Now they are here! Housing vouchers, No help at all for the previous owners! but free to the criminal class! ( our local NAACP leaders said publically- these aren’t our people! These are out of towners! fron LA) Everything paid for–lots of time to get into trouble! Steal while the working people have to work! Just look at their pictures every nite on TV ! the ones who were killed and the ones who killed them! Real beautys I assure you! I wonder how many voted for Obama??

          • mom2oneson

            Same thing here when they came here, the crime rate skyrocketed. They even upped them on the list for public housing (projects) what about our own residents that were waiting!

          • SteveLA

            mom

            Crime in NO has always been a problem but some of the problem has been amplified by the court system, or more properly the legal system in Louisiana and the culture of the projects where the permanent underclass lived.

            There was a 60 minutes segment (I think that’s where I saw it) that examined both aspects.

            Many criminals are caught, but if no witness come forth, then the criminals get off.

            If you live in a project where “snitching” can get you killed, witnesses often disappear…etc etc. I read somewhere that the conviction rate in NO was under 50 percent….Wowser.

            When some of the displaced from Katrina came into Huston the crime rate soared, but justice in Texas was a different animal, and many of the low life’s found that out along with a long sentence as a guest of the state prisons.

            You can read a bit more about the criminal element if in NO you dig around a bit.

          • mom2oneson
        • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

          doesn’t matter how many positions, for how long, are held by Republicans, it would take 100′s of years of concerted effort to change that…. Even then, over that long a period of time, it wouldn’t probably be able to be done just because it is mostly those of a Liberal/Socialist mindset that wants on the Government dole (job) themselves in order to “help people” (as they would put it) but is really just a permanent underclass that is trained to vote for the handout providers. All the laws could be changed tomorrow and they’d be resisted, delayed, fought by the underlings and challenged/blocked in Liberal Activist courts, and the like.

          just typing for the casual Democrat that may stop by and not figured that out yet, cuz I know you know that ;-) .

          • mom2oneson

            instead of those working those jobs and opposed to good changes. Child welfare/protection is this many times magnified. It was Thomas Sowell that said something like these welfare programs prevent poverty with the gov workers.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            we, of course, don’t criticize ALL recipients. We are returning to the Welfare system of a permanent class of perpetual (family and their decendents, generation after generation of “system” children) that we had before Welfare Reform we finally got Clinton to sign and PROVE we can indeed help those in need while not just handing out to whomever wants it just to protect the jobs of those in the system as just another job program for lazy Liberals wanting cushy Govt. jobs for Life.

            All/Any of this, of course, belongs at the STATE LEVEL anyway!!!! Government closest to the people, paid for by the actual communities the programs exist within, as the only way they are actually then appropriately over-seen. Again, Liberal bureaucrats only want GROWTH in their warped mind thinking more handouts equals actual more help, or so they would have people believe, or is it just them wanting more Liberal nepotism and additional Govt. jobs created to handout yet more.

            The minute anything is allowed to be FEDERALIZED, the battle is lost to it being a permanent entitlement – as relates to the Health-Care debate.

            Helping someone is actually helping to be able to eventually HELP THEMSELVES, “teach a man to fish” concept, not creating/keeping a permanent under-class that only exists (not to really help but) to feed bought/paid-for voting blocks for Democrats to whom they know the endless money supply will cointinue with no requirements.

            The ultimate sad part of this is that nowhere does actual CHARITY and Family, friends, neighbors, helping one another seems to bother to be discussed. All these years of Socialist Incremental-ism has practically removed it! Have you ever offered to purchase someone a meal that is claiming to be going hungry – most of them aren’t interested in the meal just some money. Eludes, of course, to all the Fraud of what that money goes to. CHILDREN SCHOOL LUNCH (now Breakfast) programs are yet another example of “Government expansion” under any ‘guise in the name of “helping.”

            Again, we can and should, for the right reasons, want to help our neighbors that truly need it. Churches and true Charities (as well as actually expecting peoples Families, friends, neighbors, to kick in) as the proper place for it, not the Government. It is all this system of Liberal Laziness and misuse of “Render unto Caesar” (“Separation from Church to State” (libreligion)- Liberals misuse Religion for Liberal Govt. expansion / Render – Render unto Caesar (completely misunderstood/misused by Liberals) / ‘The Greater Good’ — “The needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few, or the one.”)

            Take care and God Bless!

          • mom2oneson

            I just typed a reply but my cat walked on the keyboard and it got erased when the page went back!!! I agree with your main idea and I’m understanding more what goes on state vs private. I wrote out what I have a hard time with.

            I thjink welfare reform just expanded government jobs and it’s not a safety net. The states “leading” the way with welfare to work have just created more gov jobs and made it so it’s not a safety net. Now we have daycare, cars, taxis, bus fare, A LOT more caseworkers, transition benefits, child support enforcement, more clerks, etc. It’s more of a lifestyle improvement for mostly young unmarried woman that use the system as a lifestyle and can up with the paperwork and classes. It’s a lot of duplication with daycare. I’ve never had family to watch my child but I would say 90% of the single mothers I know have A LOT of family support. Big cities already subsidies most public transit, it’s already very inexpensive to go to and from work. If a woman is in college she is already getting a pell grant, why not use some of that money to pay for books and uniforms instead of the welfare to work office. It created a huge amount of gov worker jobs and those that contract to recieve government money like daycare providers and many are home daycares. So a grandmother could do a quick licensing and now get paid to watch her granddaughter courtsey of the state. I’m sure there is A LOT of family daycares like that. (I’m not saying people should work for free either or people shoudl take advantage of family btw)
            The one good welfare improvement there is I think is diversion, where people can opt to get a larger lump sum to pay for something specific to help them and they are asked not to apply for TANF for six months. My point with welfare reform is it stopped being a safety net for those in a crisis or really can’t work instead it’s more of a lifestyle improvement for those that use to subsidize their life and it imroved their lifestyle and gave them daycare.

            I think churches are probably the worst places for help. Most of the people are affluent and very out of touch with what it’s really like. There are exceptions but they are just that, exceptions. The church based charities do give help for some things but they encourage government dependence worse than any lib communist I’ve ever heard!! It’s very upseting even being on the other side, how many emails or calls have I gotten asking if I know where someone they met or knew can go for help!! Why not just we all give what we can $5 or $20 and give it to that person!!! The same people will spend $$ for fundraiser dinners or support for things that aren’t so important but actually helping someone gasp they think there is this vast network of charities/non profits just waiting to write checks for those in need all day.This is where that “pride” talk comes in, the clueless recommend a charity that is nothing more than gov money giving the employees of this non profit a job, the person in need obviously knows their suggestion is dumb and the clueless well off person says to others well they just won’t get help it’s pride! I’ve heard it/seen it.

            Most neighbors I’ve had only want to suck something out of me. The only set of neighbors I’ve ever had that weren’t like that were illegal Mexicans. They were very nice and the men helped me with my car several times when they saw I had a flat or my batter wasy dead or they saw me walking to store they stopped to give me us a ride. I think family is really the only good safety net.

          • mom2oneson

            Not everyone has family either. It kind of scares me with people have less children a lot of kids will not have Aunts and Uncles to pick up the slack to at least provide with some kind of shelter and dinner. When I was in high school I remember thinking how I just repeatedly saw the “victims” of the most irresposible people. It’s heart breaking. I’m sure a lot of us will end up with our kid’s friends children or have already. Not having parents or a parent to guide into adulthood makes future life much more difficult. Stuff that shold be done in late teens gets done in the late 20s and early 30s. So family is the great safety net. I know living in mom’s basement is a bad word for trolls but gosh I’d have done anything to have a basement to live in for a temporary time, finished school and gotten a skill to earn more per hour. My existance is basically just to pay rent.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            are Conservative PRO-GROWTH policies that allow that job opportunities exist. People having their own employment opportunity, others having better jobs and higher wages and therefore have the additional income to aid Charitable endeavors, etc….

          • izoneguy

            Is what Obama DOES NOT WANT TO DO. Obama signals to small business are – watch out suckas – I am coming to get you!

            Everyone is in DIVE, DIVE, DIVE mode……
            What will it take for the average American to get it?
            Now – all the pundits on the left are asking where the jobs are?
            Well folks – if you don’t get that the President that 52% of the American people voted for is against Conservative PRO-GROWTH policies that allow for job opportunities – then I have some old
            stock in a horse-shoe company I would like to sell you.

  • Achance

    a zip code to send State and federal aid to; there never has been a wage enconomy and there never will be a wage economy. Until quite recently, only the Tlingit and Haida people of Southeast Alaska really had permanent settlements; all the other Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos in Alaska were nomadic or at least semi-nomadic. After contact, the Natives began to cluster around the Russian colonial outposts, some voluntarily, some not, and the Russian missions. After acquistion by the US many more missions were built by various other Christian faiths and then the BIA established Agencies and schools. Along the way, the Native people gave up their nomadic or semi-nomadic lives and became fixed to the villages. Many “villages” were created in response to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1972 and not a few summer fishing camps received federal village status and the benefits of the Act and other Indian legislation.

    The only economy in most of them is a little wage income for various administrators, some healthcare workers in the larger ones, maybe a State DOT employee or two to maintain the airport, some teachers and administrators for the State provided school in all with a school-age population over 25. Some have a local sales tax that supports some little bit of city government and services but to the extent that there are the usual government services they are almost entirely either provided directly by the State or paid for by the State. Then there are welfare, food stamps, village and regional Native Corporation dividends, and the Permanent Fund Dividend. A few people live in the villages and work on the North Slope or fish commercially, but most who have real income move to town.

    Most of Progressive Era and New Deal Era labor and agriculture policy was about getting people off subsistance economies like the single section ranch and the small family farm. In Alaska and in Indian Country generally, subsistance has become a cultural and political icon. Nobody really lives only off the land, but they do enough of it to make good stories of it. Of course White do-gooders just melt when the activists start talking about “cultural genocide,” and throw lots of money at them to make the complaining stop – for awhile.

    In Alaska’s case, we could buy everybody in rural Alaska a nice condo in Hawaii and pay them $100K/year for less than we and the federal government spend on the fiction of preserving the subsistence culture in The Bush.

    • mom2oneson

      There is a such a high population there on food stamps. States like MS are so criticized but PR has much higher rates on public assistance and disability. Their disability rates are crazy with men of working age.

      • Achance

        is tourism, pretty much everything else runs on transfer payments or has some sort of government protection. Both are slaves to Jones Act transport, as is Alaska and the Pacific Territories, which makes everything more expensive. Both are also very, very corrupt, but it is Democrat corruption so it doesn’t count, only Alaska corruption counts. Neither PR nor HI would have a first world economy if it weren’t for government, and neither would rural Alaska. Rural Alaska in winter is only a few missed flights from returning to the Stone Age.

        • mom2oneson

          You know sooooo much!!! :)

      • aesthete

        and was once very similar to how Achance described: backwater, subsistence, and with very little in the way of a wage economy. Truth be told, you could pretty much put PR’s locales into one of two categories: San Juan (the capital), and Everywhere Else. San Juan was the only part of PR that really mattered before the US established naval bases; the mayor of San Juan was in many ways a more important position for the locals than the Governor for a while; and the Governorship was essentially either a plaything for Americans (circa early 1900′s), or a patronage position for one of the senior members of one of PR’s machine-politics style parties. This has changed recently (early 90′s, I’d say), and there has been a massive explosion of wealth and development all over the island. At one point, PR was a great place for investment, as they don’t have to pay federal taxes, but the local government has moved in and become a leviathan. Unions are particularly problematic, and are a real thorn in the side of the new Governor, a moderate conservative elected to try to fix the decades-long mess that both parties have had a hand in creating. The welfare culture is ingrained among those who live in San Juan, and the crime rates are shockingly high. If you want to see what the US would look like if liberals implemented all of their dream policies, look no further than PR.

  • erp

    Government will call the tune. Pretty soon we’ll be told what and how much to eat. Good news is that eventually they’ll run out of tax payers to pay for the party and everything will come crashing down on all our heads.

  • DavidSage

    Is food now an entitlement in this country? One out of eight on food stamps is absurd.

    Of all the government handouts, I will say food stamps are less offensive than other government programs (like welfare), but this type of assistance should be temporary and should be strictly means-tested.

    In the same way that welfare was reformed where you’re only eligible for a few years, the same should be with food stamps. After say 5 years (and I’m being exceedingly generous) you should be cut off for good. People will find a way to feed themselves, in fact the biggest problem among low-income families right now is obesity.

    Republicans shouldn’t let Democrats scare them into reforming this scam. I’m sure if you polled this issue, voters would overwhelmingly want stricter standards. Americans don’t like freeloaders, and I’m guessing 90%+ of the recipients of food stamps would never vote Republican anyway.

    • mom2oneson

      This is one thing that confuses me about the views on this site. Public schools are talked about paying double full and parents should use becuase otherwise they pay double, they can’t afford private school etc etc but food stamps are criticized and not looked at the same or people paying double for. Food is more of a necessity than public schools, I can educate a child for just transportation to the library. It cost a lot more to buy food.

    • mbecker908

      I will say food stamps are less offensive than other government programs (like welfare)

      Ahhh David, food stamps ARE welfare.

      There should be no “means testing” for food stamps or for welfare. They should both be eliminated at the federal level. If you think they’re important, do it at the state level or below.

      As far as your five year limit, if the program didn’t exist people would still find a way to feed themselves. They’d just have to look five years earlier.

      • DavidSage

        I agree that these programs SHOULD be eliminated, and if I were in charge they would be. I also think Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security should be eliminated, but I also know that it’s far more likely to reform these programs than it is to eliminate them. If Republicans ran on getting rid of Social Security and Medicare, they would get thumped at the ballot box. Instead, the smart path is to find sensible reforms.

        In the same way, if a Republican runs on getting rid of all food stamps, there’s going to be a backlash. A majority of Americans unfortunately will want some form of limited assistance for food stamps (especially for children). It’s my contention though that they want this assistance though only for those in the most dire need, and for a very limited time.

        I think the welfare reforms passed under the Contract with America are still too generous, but it was still a huge step forward.

  • RedBeard

    I’m missing out on my free stuff here. I demand my free stuff. I have a right to free stuff. And besides, my free stuff doesn’t cost anybody anything, because the government is paying for it.

    By the way, I need a new flat panel TV, which I also have a right to get for free. Come on, move it. I demand my free TV and stuff.

  • redpens

    this Congress and administration wants us dependent on them for everything. Memo to Washington: WE DON’T NEED, OR WANT YOUR HELP!!!

    • mom2oneson

      socialist and I really believe it’s due to the same thing he has experienced being from another big city with no jobs. It breaks my heart. :(

    • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

      the MOTORlessCITY…. Liberals, looking to do TO America what they’ve done TO Detroit —- as I always say ;-) if only that were funny rather than a sad truth!

  • Warrior

    and stuff, it’s that they want free children and stuff.

    No one has a right to coerce other people into paying them to have children AND an apartment AND furniture AND clothes AND food AND electricity AND cable TV AND…well, you get the idea.

    We are being held hostage by the fiction that we owe complete autonomy to people who wish to have children they cannot afford. Now, short of forced sterilization, forced abortion or infantocide, there is nothing we can do about irresponsible people having children. But we can sure as HECK make it less attractive.

    When I was down from alcoholism and drug addiction I lived in several communal-type settings, e.g. rescue missions, half-way houses, jails, etc. We all got foodstamps (or gubmint food), we all ate together, we all shared rooms, electricity, TV, etc. It was quite economical AND it had the extra added benefit of providing us with MOTIVATION to get our lives back together and go make it on our own.

    And that is exactly the kind of “safety net” we need. No cash “benefits,” no individual food stamps, no subsidized apartments, no free electricity, no cable TV or cell phones (oh yes, gubmint provides cell phones as a welfare “benefit.”) Single mothers can live in homes for unwed mothers like my mother did. Learning to obey Rules, built-in day care, transport to jobs, NO MEN allowed, etc. They may just get tired of living in such a place after a while? Ya think?

    (And most people don’t realize how much “welfare” money goes to drug dealers and such. Man, gubmint “benefit” day is payday for the local drug sources and liquor stores you can bet. And please don’t respond that it’s a stereotype or “myth” either — I lived cheek and jowl with this bunch for far too long. Besides, if one dime of my money goes to a drug pusher it’s too much.)

    But we’re straining at gnats and swallowing camels anyway. Why are there no jobs in a country as prosperous as ours? Becasue TOO MUCH of our money flows to Washington DC. Think about it, Obama has enough cash on hand to send people who are already well off a $250 COLA when the cost of living went DOWN last year. What the heck is that? If the gubmint would return even 20% of our own money back to us there would be jobs going a-begging.

    Indeed, this too is not even the root of the problem. The real danger of socialism (welfare) is the creation of a welfare MENTALITY. It may be a joke now, but eventually, no one will want to work. Do you ever wonder why the citizens of oil-rich countries like Iran and Iraq are so poor? Besides their corrupt gubmints, they have no work ethic. Ask any soldier returning from overseas about trying to get those jaspers to actually DO something. Sad to say, it’s a lot easier to destroy a people’s work ethic than to build it back up after it’s lost.

    As another poster has mentioned, once enough folks owe their livelihood to the gubmint, it will be impossible to pry them loose. I often receive personal ridicule when people find out I believe gubmint hand-outs should be cut off. Many of them actually want to kill me for it I suspect. No one is more hostile than someone who believes his or her “gubmint entitlement check” is in jeopardy.

    No, I hope I’m wrong, but we may have already “jumped the shark,” so to speak. Merle Haggard was peobably right — the best of the good times ARE really over for good. See you in the welfare line!.

    • wesley1

      Most people in this country have a strong work ethic.

      • JadedByPolitics

        because the REALITY is that 41% of the population PAYS NO TAXES and when you are enjoying the benefits of the country in which you live and EVERYONE is paying your way WE HAVE A PROBLEM!!!

        Food stamps and the non-stigmatization of them are just a symptom of the larger disease of GIMME and liberalism has done a fantastic job of ensuring a large portion of our society has that disease and they are NOT looking for a cure!

        • wesley1

          As for proof, I thought we led the world in worker productivity.

          I question your statement 41% of people pay no taxes. Between federal and state income taxes, property tax, state and local taxes, sales tax, gas tax etc, almost everybody pays taxes in one form or another.

          I’m not arguing about food stamps being a symptoms of a larger disease and that some people would rather take food stamps than work. But I would say the large majority of folks on food stamps would rather be working or are working. I read an article a couple of years ago that some of our soldiers are on food stamps. Would you call them a symptoms of liberalism?

          My statement was that unemployment and a poor economic situation is more of problem than “lazy” Americans.

          How can you believe in American exceptionalism if you think most Americans are lazy?

          • mom2oneson

            they are talking about federal taxes not sales tax and property tax (or property tax via a 3rd party as in rent). The EITC and ACTC gives a lot of people a refudable tax credit and it cancels out a lot of people’s federal tax liability if there is one. Everyone that works either pays self employment around 15 % or the 7% with the employer paying the other 7% which comes out of their salary and stuff anyway.
            Many military do qualify for food stamps because of their income level but I will see they traditionally (until recent changes apparently with asset reform I’m finding out) they are much better off because some of their pay isn’t calculated as income and a lot of their benefits are paid in a different category or given directly vs being part of the salary and then being decuted out. It’s really a different animal when it comes to military and public assistance. Nobody discusses that with the soldier food stamp discussions. For example if I earn $2000 a month and I pay out 800 a month for insurance for my family of 2 I would not be elgible. If I earn $1200 per month and the military pays my healthcare I am elgible. If all the health insurance, housing, etc was calculated as income like with most civilian jobs I don’t even think the lowest ranking members with two kids would qualify unless they had a lot of children and how many 20 year olds have six kids?

      • mbecker908
        • wesley1

          nt

    • mbecker908
    • JadedByPolitics

      ….

    • mschmitt
    • aesthete

      You should consider posting this as a diary.

      • Warrior

        last night, so I didn’t see any responses.

        Actually, I tought the comments would all be negative, along the lines of “racist” even though race wasn’t mentioned, or “heartless” even though I’ve been there myself, or “Xenophobe” even though immigrants weren’t mentioned either.

        Actually, those were the reasons I didn’t post it as a diary. I spend days burning the strawmen or killing the stalking horses typically used to refute such comments. It gets tiresome after a while. But the fact remains, grown men and women of sound mind and body should earn their own keep. Period.

        • aesthete

          I’m Puerto Rican, have been “poor” (lowest income bracket), and have lived and enjoyed living abroad. In short, I’ve lived the life (well, by the numbers, anyways) of, and lived in close proximity to, the stereotypical liberal scenario articulated where people “need” welfare.

          Despite all of that, whenever I make points similar to those made by yourself around any of my (predominantly upper-middle class) liberal friends, they will still trot out the litany of epithets: uncaring, mean, racist (against my own kind, apparently), etc. I’ve even had some acquaintances accuse me of either suffering from some sort of cultural Stockholm Syndrome, or of being bitter whenever welfare recipients succeed!

    • mom2oneson

      The real danger of socialism (welfare) is the creation of a welfare MENTALITY

      I see this with many well off people too. It’s sickening. I probably see it more/extreme with those better off. I think health insurance helps this mentality too..people don’t want to pay for anything. I’ve seen people that were literally millionaires throw fits because their kids wouldn’t be entitled to $100 in free books at the community college and other kids were. Goodness be happy you have it for them to go move to the next problem in your life. I don’t see that with the poor, they seem to be a lot more willing to pay for educational things even when their is a screw up with the financial aid.

      I know it’s not the point but I disagree with the unwed mothers leaving the kids at daycare. but I agree 100% with the NO MEN, to me that is the problem, the low life men a lot of these women seem to get involved with and they get rid of one and meet another.

      Achance wrote something about cutting off welfare and how it would change things as far as employment and I wanted to comment it would FOR SURE change the most sought after traits in men like employed would be #1!!!! They just do not view males as providers. I didn’t either, you don’t know what you don’t grow up with but I’m sorry once you have a kid it’s a lot easier to see they need a father to provide for them and give them protection. Anytime I say this I get called a gold digger so if that makes me oh well! I wish churches would emphasize marriage more. The LDS church is the only one that seems to do that.

  • papagee

    How many people use their foodstamp cards like money. Most people I know who recive this assisitance get much more than they need to get by.

    The “surplus” gets turned into goods, services and cash. Many people “loan” out their card (and pin number) in return for items like tattoos, a bag of weed, methamphetamine or go to certain small stores dotted throughout the community to exchange food credits for cold cash.

    Being self employed in a tough economy, I probably could qualify for this assistance right now. But I was raised with a differrent mindset. My parents taught me that I dont deserve anything I didnt work for

    That our government wants to sign up millions more to the program is just indicative of the “entitled” attitude of a large portion of our national population.

    • Warrior
  • tazzmax

    by the progressives is proof that the “Cloward/Piven” plan is alive and well.

    Once the country is totally bankrupt, it’s an easy step into complete govt takeover into a communist dictatorship.

    • RedBeard

      The goal of the leftists has never been the welfare of the people; it has always been to get as many people onto welfare as possible.

      The key to leftist power is to make people dependent and helpless.

  • sdeakins

    … for now there are no longer the dead bloated carcasses of starved folk laying in the streets. New government jobs have employed some of the needliess to remove and burn these corpses from the avenues of our streets. Adding the nearly dead to the welfare rolls will also increase the need for tax-payer provided abortion as these folks enjoy new strength and vitality and are able to enjoy the joyfulness of promiscuous sex.

  • paine76

    his is Obama’s fault because he took office less than a year ago?? You can’t even get traction on this on your home turf. Most of the blogs ignore what you obviously feel is the “larger point” (Sunday, November 29th at 1:39, your reply to MOM), as they overwhemingly addressing details of the food stamp program itself, or recount personal or anecdotal experiences of dealing with poverty, etc. But what YOU want to sell, is that the increase in the use of the food stamp program, is THE FAULT of Obama!

    Sorry, but the cart comes AFTER the horse. It was the trillion dollar deficit spending (primarily for an unnecessary war), tax cuts for the rich (to “stimulate the economy?”), and the dismantling of “evil” government regulation of financial institutions and Wall Street (coupled with THEIR ever-present singular goal of “more money”), before and during those “benighted days” of Bush, that (like the earthquake at the bottom of the sea) RESULTED in the tsunami we are now having to deal with!

    And don’t give me this, “Is it time to stop the blame-game?”, FAUX News, disingenuous garbage. More than a year ago, when it became inevitable that the fit was going to hit the shan, the vast consensus of economists on both sides of the political spectrum, was that it would be YEARS before we would start to see any real recovery from the damage done.

    Within the total umbrella of the meltdown, the housing-bust factor has disproportionately targeted middle-income America, driving growing numbers to the food stamp and bread lines. That little jewel was brought to us by the self-serving efforts of Reaganomic disciples (such as Phil Gramm and wife), and amoral Wall Street greed. (Again, per the NYT article.)

    (see htp://www.moneymorning.com/2009/01/13/deregulation-financial-crisis/)

    Even MORE incredible, is your accusation (and, heaven forbid!, “Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is disgusting.), that instead of trying to stay ahead of the reality of rising numbers, and proactively deal with the NEED DRIVEN problem (WHICH IN ANY FAIR READING, IS THE POINT THE NYT ARTICLE IS MAKING), they (Obama and administration) are REALLY wringing their hands in joyful socialist glee, at an opportunity to promote government control of our lives, as an ideological goal, in and of itself. PLEASE!!

    I do not know what the requirements are regarding “working”, in order to get SNAP aide, but there obviously must be some realistic guidelines for exception. If you’ve been laid off and can’t get work, you (and family) are probably going to find it hard to eat right. To be as hard-nosed as you seem to imply on this issue, is like saying to the paraplegic, “We’ll help with your operation, but you have to walk to the hospital.”

    Finally, I just don’t know where to start to address your closing rhetorical question: “Is it too much to ask that wealthy Americans not be able to take advantage of loopholes to steal from the taxpayers?”.

    Ma’ Gawd, man! You have just waken up to this, and can only ask it as applies to “welfare queens” getting food stamps? What about the Halliburtons and KBRs, Blackwaters, Exxon-Mobiles, Archer Daniels Midlands, and countless others who, for decades have corrupted our seats of government via money and lobbying, writing tax code legislation which disproportionately favors themselves at the cost of the MILLIONS of middle class Americans, who are now finding themselves at SNAP centers FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THEIR LIVES!

    You don’t need a doctorate in mathematics, or argue statistical fine points, to see the “BIG bottom line”. Check online for objective statistics regarding “distribution of wealth” over the last decade, at least. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the great middle-class is getting nipped both top and bottom. This does not include the perpetual rising costs of non-discretionary spending (education, health care, food, energy, housing, etc.,) even further reducing real middle-class wealth. This has been the HISTORICAL trend, and does not include in any way, the economic crises itself. It will be years before that is factored in, but I can pretty well bet which direction the numbers will go.

    I do suggest to anyone that they go to

    htp://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?_r=1

    and read the NYT article itself, and see if it supports Mr. Faughnan’s direction of it.

    Also, in the spirit of patriotism and in review of the intent of our Founding Fathers as regards the relationship of government and the people it is SUPPOSED to serve, please read “Agrarian Justice” by Thomas Paine at:

    htt://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/agjst.html

    It is only a few pages and fast reading. I suspect many will reject it’s validity as representative of our Revolutionary thinking, as their minds are made up, and they wish not to be confused by facts. To those who question, but are willing to consider a testimonial to Paine, please check Thomas Edison’s at:

    htt://www.thomaspainefriends.org/edison-essay-on-paine.htm

    This was given by Edison at the commemoration of a memorial to Paine, at Paine’s house in New Rochelle, N.Y., which was given to him by the Government (President Jefferson, I believe) in appreciation for his contribution to the American Revolution. Again, it is very short, and It’s reading is fascinating, revealing, and to me, inspiring.

    In honesty, I respect all those who blog here, and I understand your anger. I feel it too, and know that you (like me) want to save our Country from the current dysfunctionalism, which is impossible to ignore. However, (and again respectfully) I probably disagree with many here as to the causes of this dysfuntionality, and as to what measures are appropriate to correct the problems. I do not question the motives of others in order to discredit their arguments (which I see way too much of in both hemispheres of the “blog world”). I try to avoid insult and sarcasm and hyperbola (although I ‘aint perfect!), and instead try to engage logic and reason in the debate of differing views, in the best spirit intended, in our Country.

    I’ll stoke the fires a bit more in closing, with the following quote by Paine from his “Rights of Man”.

    “When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am the friend of its happiness: when these things can be said, then may that country boast its constitution and its government.”

    • Achance

      Yep, Comrade Obama needs you and the rest of the 52% Useful Idiots to keep the revolution going.

      • Streiff

        nt

    • mschmitt
      • izoneguy

        Ode to paine76

        “It shall be said for this country of the world, my poor are lazy; ignorance & distress is to be found among them; my jails are full of prisoners, my streets are full of beggars; the aged are not wanted, the taxes are oppressive; the rational world is not my friend, because I am the friend of Obama: and these things can be said, may those that support him try as they may to destroy it’s constitution and it’s government, behold for thine supporters are devine idiots.”

    • Richard Mullins

      Man are you sure that you’re not Robert Gibbs? Really, think you are and using a slick name like paine76 to get in. Be gone, you leftist zombie.

    • Finrod

      .

      • mschmitt

        • Finrod

          I had never actually used ‘tl;dr’ (too long; didn’t read) before; almost all of those types of abbreviations that I use are the ones that date from before the September That Never Ended, back when I read and posted to Usenet regularly, and this one definitely postdates that era.

          I figured it was appropriate in this context though, since few things are more insulting to long-winded trolls than to know that people are skipping their long verbiage unread.

    • aesthete

      A man who abandoned the US in a hissy fit, had impractical and improbable ideas for governance, attacked religion mostly without basis, and was smitten by a dictator (Napoleon), going so far as to discuss with him the potential invasion of Great Britain. As far as I’m concerned, he’s the progenitor of American progressivism, and his life is summed up well in the following line from his obituary in the New York Citizen: “He had lived long, did some good and much harm.”

      • redneck_hippie
    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      But I ‘accidentally’ made your comment disappear.

      • aesthete
      • mschmitt
  • dvdmsr

    I saw this replayed this morning, and my head about exploded.

    Gosh, do their parents still get to claim them as a dependent when they file their taxes?

    • dvdmsr

      http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/your_money/Should-students-be-using-Bridge-Cards

      • mom2oneson

        or they are employed 20 hours per week (meeting the other income/assets limits) they qualify.
        There are many reciving TANF that are in college. It’s all part of welfare to work. They also can get taxis, possibly cars, gas, bus fare, daycare, etc,

  • mom2oneson

    With food stamp rules states can get a waiver for the adult work requirements.in some counties. It looks like it has to do with the unemployment rate.

    The farm bill in 2008 made it so 401K and 529 plans are exempt assets from food stamps. That is incredible. (BTW I think this was President Bush’s idea.)

    This is very rought it looks like the loophole might be some way for the states to have their food stamp asset guidelines (which are set by the fed gov) with their TANF guidelines (which they have more freedom to set.) I don’t understand this because the food stamp rules are stricter. Here is a list. I have NO idea if this source is legit or not btw

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=554

    What is even worse is the freedom they have with TANF not to have an asset limit. So you could have oodles of money in the bank and still get cash in some places, like possibly Ohio. One thing I read said they were the first but I have NO IDEA if that is current. I heard of IDAs before but this is incredible AND I thought they were a pilot program. I didn’t know people could have that much and get TANF. Search google for “asset reform TANF” and all sorts of reading comes up, just a warning it’s all sort of liberal (people should be allowed to have savings and still get welfare) but then it was republicans that are behind welfare reform (which I think is a racket that just expanded more gov jobs and leave out many that need help) that allowed this so I really don’t know what the conservative thought is on this.

    I want to try and make a timeline of the rules and changes and what states get waivers and the changes they made.

    Off to go eat my humble pie. :) I apologize Brian!

  • Warrior

    That’s why charity is best left to churches and individuals and not to nameless, faceless bureaucrats who couldn’t care less…

  • Pingback: Google