Food Stamps And The Politics Of Entitlements

[Preacher Man]

Poor people? Or those able to work but choose not to? That can include those not in the poor category. Though granted, if rich people choose not to work it's hard to make an argument against that based on the fact that they don't need to. Just so long as nobody else pays their bills for them. Is it too much to ask for people to pull their own weight when they have the ability?

The problem is when we do not distinguish between those who don't want to work and those who want to work, but don't find it or find it with very small salaries; not enough to live from. There is such a thing as the working poor, and the unemployment/underemployment rates do not consider those who are not looking for a job.

[Codger_64]

The problem is when we do not distinguish between those who don't want to work and those who want to work, but don't find it or find it with very small salaries; not enough to live from. There is such a thing as the working poor, and the unemployment/underemployment rates do not consider those who are not looking for a job.

There are also those who, for one reason or another, would work if they could but cannot.

[Preacher Man]

There are also those who, for one reason or another, would work if they could but cannot.

Yes they are out there, and I know a few. I have a friend who had a series of strokes and mini brain hemorrhages and is in the process of re-learning to walk, talk, and eat on his own, among other things. He would wish for nothing else than to be healthy and back at work providing for his family.

[Codger_64]

I know several. One of them was in a car wreck years ago and suffered brain damage. I wanted to give him a part time job but he isn't able to focus more than a minute at a time. I know three others, all young ladies with a child. Their husbands either left them with no support or are in jail for one thing or another. Two work at low paying part time jobs and one is going to college. I know another man who worked a low paying job until he got too old. Now, because of his age and general health issues, no one will hire him. He could get a job at Wal-Mart, but it is 35 miles away and he can't drive. Even if he could, his gas would cost more than the job would pay. All are on one type of assistance or another. None of them, as far as I know, are soaking anyone, getting rich, lying about circumstances or even getting all of the assistance they are eligible for. One of the girls gets $100 a month in Snap and WIC for her child. On a good week, she brings home $80. She lives to make bread and makes bread to live, nothing more or less. But she plans to better herself when her child is old enough to start school. She certainly didn't choose her circumstance. IMHO, none of them did.

[Triton]

Let's break this down shall we?

I know several. One of them was in a car wreck years ago and suffered brain damage. I wanted to give him a part time job but he isn't able to focus more than a minute at a time.

This is the only one that I'm seeing that truly is a victim of circumstances beyond his control.

I know three others, all young ladies with a child. Their husbands either left them with no support or are in jail for one thing or another. Two work at low paying part time jobs and one is going to college.

So just so we are clear here, all of these women managed to get married and / or pregnant before they had completed any sort of college or technical education? Further they married men who apparently are worthless wastes of human existence? It sounds like they made at least two sets of bad choices to me?

I know another man who worked a low paying job until he got too old.

Why? Is he mentally incompetent to take any other sort of job or get more training? Again, it sounds like decisions were made.

He could get a job at Wal-Mart, but it is 35 miles away and he can't drive.

The obvious solution would seem then to be to move to someplace where he can get employment would it not? Again, a decision has been made.

On a good week, she brings home $80.

She gets paid the equivalent of 2 dollars (after taxes I presume) an hour? What the heck is she doing for a living?

But she plans to better herself when her child is old enough to start school.

Well, that's something at least. I hope it's true.

She certainly didn't choose her circumstance. IMHO, none of them did.

Based on the information you have presented I disagree. It would appear that most of them are in circumstances that are a direct result of decisions they have made.

I know that this post will doubtless contribute to my image as a heartless s.o.b. but every single person on the dole has some story about why they are there and it seems it is never their fault. Guess what? It's not my fault either, in fact I've made decisions precisely to keep myself and my family out of those sorts of circumstances, yet I'm expected to foot the bill... and I'm selfish and not paying my fair share if I cry foul.

[jdm61]

I was talking about the period from say 1793 to 1910. We were already the largest industrial power in the world before WW1. One reason that we could afford goods is not because they were cheap or because we made more money. It is because people bought a lot fewer goods. Our expectation were MUCH lower. Go into a typical suburban home today and count the number of TV's and telephones.. Count the number of cars. See how many $100+ pairs of children's shoes )which the children will outgrow in 6 months) are in the closet. At some point, the "American Dream" got converted into the "rock and roll lifestyle" as seen on MTV Cribs. even the most lowly denizen of a housing project expects to have an expensive pair of sneakers and a smart phone these days.

Actually, wealth was pretty well dispersed after the second World War when the economy doubled every ten years and Americans rose to become the middle class, able to afford homes, cars, new appliances and plenty of food. Why did it double? People were employed and producing products that they could buy. Our nation's money did not flow overseas to China, yet we were able to afford domesticly produced goods just fine. Wages kept pace with costs of living. It was expected that each seceeding generation would prosper at least as much as their parents if not more so.

[Codger_64]

And the manufacturing and merchandising of all of those goods create jobs. Shame the manufacturing jobs aren't here though. But even the merchants are falling on lean times with fewer people able to buy goods, even cheaper goods made overseas. There is no mystery that Walmart went from one aisle of groceries to being the nation's largest grocer, the food taking 1/3rd of the average store. More and more people are living to earn bread. Earning bread to live.

[jdm61]

The problem is that we want so MANY things that we unable or unwilling to pay for them unless they are made by cheap labor or in highly automated factories. The good news/bad news is that the price point at which it is no more expensive and in some cases cheaper to bring the highly automated production back stateside is dropping. Many cars, particularly cars made buy foreign manufacturers, have been cheaper to make for the US market in the US. Now those companies are finding that in some cases, it is more efficient to produce them in the US for export, including some to go back to Japan. The difference between these plants and say some of the old GM plants with screwy union contracts and outdated equipment is that planet like the Toyota factory in Georgetown, KY can pay the workers outrageously high salaries and still feel cars at a reasonable price. Part of that has to do with the fact that they are not saddled with all of those retirement benefits for workers that haven't been employed for years, but another piece is that it takes fewer workers to build a car in a newer plant.

And the manufacturing and merchandising of all of those goods create jobs. Shame the manufacturing jobs aren't here though. But even the merchants are falling on lean times with fewer people able to buy goods, even cheaper goods made overseas. There is no mystery that Walmart went from one aisle of groceries to being the nation's largest grocer, the food taking 1/3rd of the average store. More and more people are living to earn bread. Earning bread to live.

[Codger_64]

It doesn't matter if they reduce new car prices to 1970's level if the majority of consumers don't have the money to buy them. Joe will continue to buy Jane's old car that used to be Ted's old car. Without sufficient income, people just don't buy new goods. They repair and reuse old goods. Or they do without. And cars sit in factory dealer lots for want of buyers.

[jdm61]

Actually, sales numbers are up from what I have seen.

It doesn't matter if they reduce new car prices to 1970's level if the majority of consumers don't have the money to buy them. Joe will continue to buy Jane's old car that used to be Ted's old car. Without sufficient income, people just don't buy new goods. They repair and reuse old goods. Or they do without. And cars sit in factory dealer lots for want of buyers.

[timcsaw]

It doesn't matter if they reduce new car prices to 1970's level if the majority of consumers don't have the money to buy them. Joe will continue to buy Jane's old car that used to be Ted's old car. Without sufficient income, people just don't buy new goods. They repair and reuse old goods. Or they do without. And cars sit in factory dealer lots for want of buyers.

Unfortunatly... Ted's old car was scrapped and crushed by Obama's "Cash for Clunkers", so both Joe and Jane are SOL.

[Codger_64]

They didn't get Codger's 20 year old truck or his fifty year old car.

[A.W.U.K.]

They didn't get Codger's 20 year old truck or his fifty year old car.

Or my 17 year old car, though I did get offers.

[timcsaw]

They didn't get Codger's 20 year old truck or his fifty year old car.

Or my 17 year old car, though I did get offers.

You guys RULE!

I've currenly got my eye on a '68 Chevy El Camino (if I can talk the guy out of it).

[eyeeatingfish]

So just so we are clear here, all of these women managed to get married and / or pregnant before they had completed any sort of college or technical education? Further they married men who apparently are worthless wastes of human existence? It sounds like they made at least two sets of bad choices to me?

That is the past
Besides deciding to be a house wife and raise your kids while your husband works is not a set of bad decisions. Your husband dies or leaves you and all of a sudden you are stuck in this unfortunate circumstances and it is all your fault you are stuck in poverty?
Some people do need assistance and it should not be denied just because they either made the mistake of having a child too early or had the unfortunate circumstance of a death or something else similar.

[Noctis3880]

The problem is when we do not distinguish between those who don't want to work and those who want to work, but don't find it or find it with very small salaries; not enough to live from. There is such a thing as the working poor, and the unemployment/underemployment rates do not consider those who are not looking for a job.

The problem itself is the limitation of humans. We are not omniscient, and even the most honed of BS detectors will not automatically identify slackers on sight, otherwise the decision to provide assistance or not would be entirely subjective and based on the case worker's opinion alone. If you thought stereotyping is bad now...

Thus my opinion is that behavior must be controlled to an extent. Limiting foodstamp eligible products would be a positive first step. People on foodstamps do not need more junk food to increase their food consumption, and it is not nutritional in the least. And if they're buying steak and shrimp at $9.99/lb, it's not an effective use of funds, which makes me skeptical as to their "needs".

Limiting the number of children based on total available assets(not income alone) vs debt seems like a reasonable second step. If you are poor and in bad financial health, the only possible reason why you would want more children would be to get child tax credit(encourages more children than one can afford and should be done away with) and more foodstamp and welfare money, i.e. gaming the system. Society pays to feed and clothe their children. This needs to stop.

So just so we are clear here, all of these women managed to get married and / or pregnant before they had completed any sort of college or technical education? Further they married men who apparently are worthless wastes of human existence? It sounds like they made at least two sets of bad choices to me?

To be fair, these people are usually young, probably in their teens. Mark my words, teens are physiologically hard-wired to be stupid and impulsive. I know from personal experience. I'm more concerned with whether or not the stupid behavior continues. If they already have kids they're struggling to raise and decide to have MORE kids, then I would recommend taking their children away and sterilizing them.

The obvious solution would seem then to be to move to someplace where he can get employment would it not? Again, a decision has been made.

You make it sound easy. Housing isn't cheap these days. Just up and moving itself takes money. I guess that's the irony there, you really DO need money to make money.

She gets paid the equivalent of 2 dollars (after taxes I presume) an hour? What the heck is she doing for a living?

Sounds like less than 12 hours a week on minimum wage. Not entirely impossible as some of the lowest level jobs will do that to you.

I know that this post will doubtless contribute to my image as a heartless s.o.b. but every single person on the dole has some story about why they are there and it seems it is never their fault. Guess what? It's not my fault either, in fact I've made decisions precisely to keep myself and my family out of those sorts of circumstances, yet I'm expected to foot the bill... and I'm selfish and not paying my fair share if I cry foul.

It's not easy being a cynic. I will say that there ARE those who genuinely need the assistance. My concern is whether those people are the rule, or the exception. Is it moral to abandon one in need? Certainly not, but forced charity is not the answer. As well, the actual "need" is questionable for a lot of cases. So the desire to keep your own money is understandable.

[Codger_64]

The problem itself is the limitation of humans. We are not omniscient, and even the most honed of BS detectors will not automatically identify slackers on sight, otherwise the decision to provide assistance or not would be entirely subjective and based on the case worker's opinion alone. If you thought stereotyping is bad now...

Thus my opinion is that behavior must be controlled to an extent. Limiting foodstamp eligible products would be a positive first step. People on foodstamps do not need more junk food to increase their food consumption, and it is not nutritional in the least. And if they're buying steak and shrimp at $9.99/lb, it's not an effective use of funds, which makes me skeptical as to their "needs".

Limiting the number of children based on total available assets(not income alone) vs debt seems like a reasonable second step. If you are poor and in bad financial health, the only possible reason why you would want more children would be to get child tax credit(encourages more children than one can afford and should be done away with) and more foodstamp and welfare money, i.e. gaming the system. Society pays to feed and clothe their children. This needs to stop.


To be fair, these people are usually young, probably in their teens. Mark my words, teens are physiologically hard-wired to be stupid and impulsive. I know from personal experience. I'm more concerned with whether or not the stupid behavior continues. If they already have kids they're struggling to raise and decide to have MORE kids, then I would recommend taking their children away and sterilizing them.


You make it sound easy. Housing isn't cheap these days. Just up and moving itself takes money. I guess that's the irony there, you really DO need money to make money.


Sounds like less than 12 hours a week on minimum wage. Not entirely impossible as some of the lowest level jobs will do that to you.


It's not easy being a cynic. I will say that there ARE those who genuinely need the assistance. My concern is whether those people are the rule, or the exception. Is it moral to abandon one in need? Certainly not, but forced charity is not the answer. As well, the actual "need" is questionable for a lot of cases. So the desire to keep your own money is understandable.

So you are a full blown socialist?

[Noctis3880]

So you are a full blown socialist?

Am I? Never gave enough thought to try and classify myself.

[Codger_64]

A libertarian suggests that government dictate how many children people can have? I don't think so.

[Noctis3880]

Pretty sure when it asked if people with inheritable disabilities should be allowed to have children I answered "no".