One in Eight Americans Now Receives Food Stamps
 

The Safety Net - Living on Nothing but Food Stamps - Series - NYTimes.com
John Linder wants your children to literally starve to death, and he is on a House panel on welfare policy.

You have to understand that "lower the taxes" is the only consistent idea the Republican Party has left. If he were to propose that problems could be possibly be solved by any other method, he would essentially be declaring himself apostate.

Congressional panels basically determine government policy.

John Linder, a member of a panel on welfare policy, wants to do away with welfare.

Bolton was the liaison to the UN.

This is how they do.

Bolton fulfilled his obligations as a liaison, though, which was the weird thing.

He did. But on paper he's about the worst choice ever.

It's just strange to think that the Bush administration chose an appointment that symbolized their opinion of the UN, yet who was at the same time an effective bureaucrat.

It's one of the few things they did competently, and I refuse to believe it was on purpose.

I can sympathize with Isabel Bermudez on this issue as the job market, to me, does seems quite poor (almost hopeless) out there at the moment (even for college graduates) with seemingly no hopes of improving in the foreseeable future as I see it unless something is done.

***

There is a good Chinese Proverb though that I feel sums up this situation and Mr. Linder's viewpoint which goes something like...

"Give me a fish and I eat for a day. Teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime."

Sympathy aside, I really do think this welfare issue is becoming an ever increasing problem and, like Linder mentioned, I feel we need to give lower income individuals more motivation to succeed on their own and help weed them off government assistance.

Creating new jobs, whether by reducing taxes on small businesses, investing into the nations infrastructure (by creating new roads, bridges, or buildings, etc...) or what ever method(s) the government ultimately decides to use is far more useful in the long run than simply applying a quick fix like boosting welfare.

I do disagree with Linder in some aspects though as I feel we still need to help the lower-income families at least for the meantime until they are able to help themselves. We need almost an incentive plan of sorts to make individuals want to support themselves while at the same time supporting those who are otherwise incapable of doing it themselves.

People like Ms. Bermudez clearly already know how to fish.

The problem is that there aren't any fucking fish. It's delusional to assume that access to fishing holes and to fishing equipment is somehow equal across the board.

And if you think people need "motivation" to find methods other than food stamps to sustain themselves, you have some interesting ideas about how fun it is to try to live on stamps. It's not fun. It's demeaning. Nobody CHOOSES to live on gov't assistance because they're just too damned lazy; even the shittiest gas station job will usually provide a better standard of living.

Well, I shouldn't say "nobody", but to take a handful of welfare queens and use them to demonize the entire program is repulsive.

"Motivation" is all very nice, but people can't find work simply by wishing real hard and clapping their hands. The jobs have to exist.

And what, exactly, about lowering taxes causes jobs to materialize? Someone explain this to me. Okay, in theory, if the business owner is taxed less he can afford to hire more employees. But why would he? Demonstrably he can run his business with the staff he has now; why should he use his new windfall to hire more? Out of the goodness of his heart?

Oh, but Pang! If taxes are lowered, people will have more to spend! Our theoretical small business owner will therefore have more business! He will be forced to hire more employees by the sheer force of consumer demand!

Anyone who has ever worked a retail position during the holidays knows that customer density and staff density have no relationship in the mind of hiring managers.

Yeah I was thinking about the lower taxes = more jobs issue myself and was thinking it probably wouldn't achieve much in terms of creating more jobs.

I think possibly they are hoping it will inspire some sort of entrepreneurial feeling in everyday individuals which will in term perhaps lead them to start up a business which theoretically would create new jobs.

Of course lower taxes = more spending money for consumers = more spending which will possibly equate to a need for more jobs like you mentioned as well.

At the corporate level I suppose having more revenue flowing through the business, due to lower taxes, may also result in more hiring or lifting many of the hiring freezes which have seemed to have been put in place following the most recent (current?) recession.

I can sort of see the logic in this sort of mentality, but I feel investing more into construction projects and infrastructure would be a better solution for the lower income population and the country as a whole in the long run.

And I wasn't really belittling Isabel Bermudez with my initial statement, or at least I wasn't intending to. I do believe there are those individuals out there who are desperately in need of this government assistance. However, I feel that there are far more individuals than you or I can imagine Pangalin who are completely content leeching off this system. The fact that Mr. Linder seemed to express such hostility on this subject leads me to believe the numbers of these individuals are quite staggering.

I don't think the argument reduces to how many people are taking advantage of the system vs. how many are being supported by it. I've heard from people who've been in situations where they could take a job and wind up losing more benefits than their new job would supply. These aren't marginalized people, so it wasn't a big deal, but there is a large group of people where that difference means a great deal. It indicates to me that the process is broken.

Prove it, asswipe.

What about those of us who COULD be on gov't assistance (college student in a music program that has no free time for actually getting a job that pays well enough to do more than cover bills), but don't because ... actually I dunno. I feel like I'd be taking it from someone who needs it.

There are many factors of eligibility, but based on the information contained in your post, you would not be eligible for Food Stamps.

If you stopped giving out food stamps, in a generation or so there'd be few enough American's left to fit the labour market you currently have. Waiting for all the poor people to starve to death is much easier to implement than any attempts to introduce some kind of commie system whereby the tax dollars of hard working 'Merkins are handed out willy-nilly to lazy bums, right?

Either that or the proles rise up to murder us in our sleep, which is the risk you take, I suppose.

I'm hoping that they'll be too weak from malnourishment to hold their guns steady.

Maybe a system of cake stamps could be implemented instead?

:happymo0.gif:

I have seen this particular type of reasoning being used as evidence recently, and I don't think its premise is sound. I submit that this is a backward reasoning that isn't supported by facts, but what amounts to an appeal to authority.

Basically saying "while I have no fact to back up this assertion, because Individual X whom I respect have strong feeling about this issue then proposition A must be true. "

While one might defer to experts on certain issues, there must be ways corroborate their position with other information or facts, otherwise its nothing more then empty assertions.

Seeing as though he dissed my post asking for the same and then left Dodge, I can only assume he can't back up his gut feeling with facts, Magi.

Simple fact is that with a topic such as this there are hardly any ways to back up an assumption like the one he made with facts due to the fact that everyone that does use gov't help uses it for different circumstances.

To better show what I mean, I knew one fella who worked at a wal-mart who lived out of the YMCA trying to get back on his feet after some sort of financial melt-down I guess..middle age guy but he was getting help from the federal government in some way financially as well as far as food stamps go. Most would consider this a good use of the gov't money due to the fact he is trying to just get back on his feet and such.

Yet on another note, there was this 20 something female that had 5 kids that were at least 1 year apart in age and she had no job but received more cash than what I make in a month at my job from government assistance, and that isn't counting food stamps thrown in. Up in Iowa people call them 'welfare mamas'. Is it right considering most don't know the circumstances? I don't think it is, but that is the only way I can see someone making an assumption that some people 'take advantage' of the system.

All in all, it is impossible to judge who 'deserves' to get help from an outside source, and those who are just 'leeching' the system. Personally I have absolutely no idea how I'm going to make enough money to live on my own, and go to school full time myself, and I also hate the idea that I might have to use food stamps due to the fact that other people need it more than I will when that time comes.

Do you feel that your salary would support five young children? Why or why not?

I'm a single 20-something and I deserve more money than children!

The benefits trap as it's known here is even harder to get out of in the UK. I'm living off benefits myself at the moment and whilst I know full well I can waltz into a high paid job once my leg heals, I can easily see how someone would prefer to sit on their arse watching telly all day and pull in the same amount of cash as a minimum wage job, if not more. Even with no kids and a partner in full employment I'm getting my rent and council tax paid for me and just over £100 a week to live off, which is more than enough frankly.

Personally I aspire to more than just getting by on benefits but when one sees so many chav families decked out in labelled clothing, with full Sky subscriptions, a brand new DS for each kid and five dogs, one can't help but feel a bit resentful. I'm not advocating forcing people to live in hardship but having more kids to increase your benefits payouts shouldn't really be allowed to be such an attractive lifestyle choice. It's that more than our drinking culture that's fucking up Britain at the moment, although I suspect our benefits are far more generous than in the US so I may not be comparing like with like.

Look, all I know is that my state has had the highest unemployment in the union since before the World Trade Center bombing. We went from 10% unemployment in January to 15% near the end of the year.

Given that, how likely do you reckon it is for the unemployed to get back on their feet? How much money can my state throw at the unemployed to keep them in their labelled clothing and their Comcast subscriptions and their DSes?

I'm not too sure if you and Brady mis-read my post or what the deal was, but no, my salary that I earn isn't enough to support one child, let alone 5. I just know for the last 5 years of my life I, myself, have been denied aid from the government as far as loans and grants for college go because my single mother makes about 25k a year and that's 'rich' according to the letter of rejection they sent me.

But then again I'm not going out and trying to have 5 kids before I reach the legal drinking age here in america.

But, and I could be getting this wrong, are you and Brady saying that it is a better life decision, as a young woman, to go out and get knocked up as much as you can so you can live off the state?

I could just be reading it wrong but that's how it sounds to me.

My girlfriend receives $200 dollars a month worth of food stamps. She's in the local Public Allies program which is a public service organization that spreads out a bunch of young adults into the community to asses some problems and try to fix or add soemthing beneficial to the community itself. They are also obligated to work for a local nonprofit which they apply to and are chosen by the nonprofits.

She's paid a good wage by Public Allies to work for said nonprofit but her wages are not recognized as a wage by the Food Stamp committee (or whoever is in charge of that).

With that said, allow me to tell you a story. It's about a girl and a boy living together, living on the bare essentials, making the most of out little. What we ate was OK as we are both adept to the kitchen, but by no means was any of it particularly amazing.

BUT THEN!

FOOD STAMPS!?

The day we received them (in a form of something like a Debit/Credit card) we headed to the local grocery (Giant Eagle) and we at. That night we prepared an amazing dinner for us and two of our friends. A double dinner date at home. Not uncommon these days as we spread the wealth around.

And how we ate, on food stamps we know what to buy and it's completely free. We eat all sorts of fancy foods, Filet Minon, Halibut, blocks of various cheeses. We are living the life, I now know what it's like to be part of the upper crust, sipping wine and eating fine.

A shocking waste of taxpayer money, I'm sure. I'm somewhat flabergasted that she gets food stamps when she makes an average wage, and when combined with mine, we wouldn't have any problems, unless you consider a lack of Filet Minon in our stomachs a problem.

So basically what you're saying is your girlfriend knew she could get away with getting undeserved/unneeded food stamps so she spent how many hours in a welfare office to apply so you and your friends could have a fancy dinner.

Sounds like a keeper!

Yes, that's what he's saying. Diviner of secrets, read these chicken bones and tell me my destiny.

What I'm asking is whether you think you deserve federal assistance money as an adult son of a woman who makes 25k a year more than five prepubescent children of a woman who makes 0 dollars a year.

But for the hell of it, I'm also asking why you think you have it worse off as a working adult than a non-working mother of five.

btw, I got federal loans and scholarships even though my 4 member one income family only topped around $40k in income, so forgive me for thinking you're either lazy or full of shit.

You're probably doing it wrong.

Ditto, received federal aid for college with 5 member two income at more than lurker's. So I support RR's suggestion.

Before I say anything else, holy Christ are you dumb. It's time to seriously start thinking about how you think, because you're not doing it.

Being a single mother living off of welfare is never a good life decision, unless you want to think that raising five kids on next-to-nothing sounds like a fun time. The idea that somebody chooses to raise children while unemployed is indicative of our privileged lifestyles. People don't always have inputs when it comes to life-altering change, especially when biological differences mean that a night of passion becomes a lifelong-burden from a father who might just as well skip town as pay child support or raise a single goddamn finger to help raise his kids.

Raising children requires a lot of work and dedication, and when the job markets are already so limited for someone who can only work so much while juggling their children, they need help! Not everybody has the support structures we have (friends, family, sometimes corporate daycare), and children shouldn't be punished for the irresponsibility of their parents. Hell, families didn't even have to be destitute for the Right to want their children to become crippling medical burdens when they attacked S-Chip.

And furthermore, what right do you have to question the lifestyle choices of people living in poverty, as if they have much of a fucking choice when it comes to doing anything that helps them forget about the fact that they have no future?

We got into this mess because society placed more value on capital than people, yet you still question policies that are the literal difference between life and death for hundreds of thousands of Americans.

You couldn't even figure out how to get student aid when your guardian makes 25,000 a year. Get new friends, do drugs, move to another state, do anything that will allow you to consider things outside of your perspective, for the love of God.

Hmm, a people that care more about consumerism than bettering themselves, almost like every other First World nation on the planet!

All by phone, actually. And by "getting away with" you of course mean "completely legitimate and legal" I assume. And that's dinners.

Ideally everyone in the country should receive foodstamps, if not because they have no income, but because it will round out their available groceries with foods that aren't shit.

Rasputina, $200 is the maximum allotment for a Food Stamp household of 1. It could very well be that your girlfriend's wages are excluded when determining eligibility and benefit amounts. The type of income does determine how it is counted.

You could be categorized as an unrelated adult male, but from the description of events in your post, I don't believe your girlfriend qualifies as a separate Food Stamp household due to the fact that you purchase and prepare together. If I were processing your girlfriend's Food Stamp application and discovered the information revealed in your post, I would have determined there to be a Food Stamp household of 2 and requested verification of your income and property in order to determine if the Food Stamp household of 2 is eligible.

So . . . umm... Grail: why would the GOVERNMENT deny you a loan?

I mean, I got more money from the government once I was no longer a dependent, but I was a member of a two-income, four member family that made more than your mom did, so... I mean, yes, the family falls into "rich" for certain purposes, but they still offered loans. Grants came once I was no longer a financial dependent.

Actually, my girlfriend was working on that, it was something she overlooked when she first applied. I'm not sure where you where going with the statement, however.

There are limits in property, gross income, and net income. When these limits are exceeded by the household, the entire household is ineligible. Your Food Stamp household is composed of you and your girlfriend. Let's say that all of your girlfriend's income is excluded and her property is either excluded depending on the type or has no countable value.

This would leave your income and property to be applied towards those limits. If your property was within limits, a budget would be computed to see if your income was within the gross income limit; if your gross income was within limits, another budget would be computed to see if your income was within the net income limit. After all budgets have been computed and the limits have not been exceeded, the countable income determines the benefit amount the household is eligible to receive.

In your case, this could mean that your household is eligible to an amount less than $200 on the basis of the countable income or not eligible at all in the event any of the limits have been exceeded. The difference from what the household received and what the household is eligible to receive would be an overissuance. Adults in the household would be required to pay back the amount of the overissuance.

I have computed claims for overissuance when my clients have reported incorrect information or knowingly reported false information. When an investigation is conducted and it is revealed that the latter has occurred, the penalties can include a fine, disqualification, or imprisonment. I have sent referrals to our investigation unit at the District Attorney's office when there are too many discrepancies in the information that is being reported. I am hoping that your girlfriend is being truthful when she is interviewed by her case worker and when she completes her paperwork.

I'd hate to pretend I know anything about the finite details but I am confident that my girlfriend reviewed the rules and, now that she's working on combining our incomes, she has let me know that with my low low income we would likely receive more than 200 a month.

With that said I do appreciate the words on my situation.

I will point out, in response to the initial reaction I received from my personal experience, I wasn't trying to show off or prove something by pretending that I "beat the system." I was merely demonstrating that it was remarkably easy and surprising that we where eligible.

I reckon you'll get even more money if you get her preggers.

I'm not here to argue against the food stamps. They are good. Everybody deserves to eat, if nothing else. I'll even exclude the argument that Americans, even the most measly and poor, have taken to gluttony.


I feel for Grail. I also applied for FAFSA when I was single. All I was approved for was a loan, because my folks made around 40k a year combined (mind you, this was after I moved out and my brother was a teenager, allowing them the ability to both work once again).
The loan was not even that much. Enough to help me through a small amount of community college, and certainly not enough to live off of. And the realistic income from my job in the first 5 years of employment in that field was not much to pay it back without the interest crippling me.

Now, I have a friend who's sister had a baby. She's receiving something like 5 grand a semester to go to school and raise her kid.
I HAD TO JOIN THE FUCKING ARMY TO GET FREE SCHOOL.

Do you see the comparison?


My question is, who the fuck thinks being a mom is a legitimate job? That's what welfare has turned it into. Have a kid? We'll pay your for it.
Some cases are fair. Families are doing what they can or getting by, and tax benefits help them out, or possibly welfare in crippling and uncontrollable situations.
But in most cases that I've seen, it is from unprepared parents having children when they can barely get my themselves. This, by my assessment, is an irresponsible act, especially considering the contraceptive technology we have these days.
Who's being rewarded for this irresponsibility? The parents. Sure, the kids get to eat and have clothes and roof, but it's the parents that get the money. it's the parents we send to higher education, not the children. Do you see the flaw?


Overall, there is just not enough money for the amount of people who want it. The solution I honestly believe would help is to have government funded vasectomy and tubal litigation programs and administer tax benefits to those who've taken advantage of them, and on top of that, stop issuing tax benefits to families beyond 2 children. Why the fuck do I need to pay for your 3rd, 4th, and 5th? YOU pay for them.

Of course! We should just let those parents stay ignorant, low-income earners so their kids can be too when they grow up. Somebody's got to flip my burgers.

Additional Spam:
I understand the injustice that you had to join the military to get an education, but the solution to that problem is to make education free, not make it harder for single parents to get an education.

I believe that's what's known as The American Way.

Well, from my viewpoint, people aren't that likely to change once they start fucking up. And I know you can't politically apply this stereotype, but I honestly think that if you want help these families out of poverty, you would start with the generation that hasn't muggled it up yet.

Free education does sound appealing, though.

We used to do that and were world leaders in probably everything. Now we've started adopting US style charges for university and are rapidly turning into a nation of retards. Some bright spark in governement will probably decide charging for healthcare is a good idea next.

Free education for all IS freedom if you ask me.

Getting knocked up might be a fuckup, but that's not the only indicator of the future. One of my professors used to instruct in Alternative Education for High Schoolers and had a student called Five Ash. The kid had a brutal reputation and had to raise a son with his baby momma, but he went to the University of Arkansas and taught the exact same subject my prof did at his old high school.

That kid would have likely been on the way to prison if it weren't for his experience in Alternative Education.

Sassafrass: i dont think theres such a thing as free education (someone still has to pay for the schools and the teachers) but more education is never a bad thing.

its just too bad no one really values education anymore these days or at least is seems that way

not to be a semantic shit, but there's a difference between the costs of instruction, and the costs of receiving an education

instructors and institutions will always cost money, but getting an education should not

It's always seemed in my experience that those paying at least part of their own way in college tended to take their studies a bit more seriously than those completely on their parent's dime.

I guess I'd be all for free education as long as you actually had to get an education in order to get the piece of paper at the end.

If I'd have had to pay what kids do these days to go to Uni I certainly would have tried to actually learn something while I was there, rather than just getting hammered for three years.

thats a good point to make but i think the system should sort itself out. people who dont take their studies seriously will fail and those who do will pass and those who pass will succeed in life.

i think the important thing is to at least give everyone free access and the opportunity to education. what each person does with the education is up to the individual. we can give them free education but its up to them to make use of it.

i think thats better than someone not being able to get an education because they cant afford it.

Except the problem with making a college education free for everyone is the total devaluation of a college degree, and the likely decrease in the quality of an education everyone will get. Do you think it'll be any more fair when colleges expect the same quality of work as our current high schools?

I'm in total support of making college free for everyone, but restricting the everyone to the people who will take their education seriously.

Any education is better than nothing. A society that puts more value on the exclusivity of post-secondary than an educated populace is headed in the wrong direction.

I suppose learning how to do a kegstand is more important than, say, learning a worthwhile trade or skill.

Just so I understand, your argument is that people shouldn't be able to get an education because then you wouldn't feel special.

Why should you care if a college degree is devalued? It's all these nebulous trades and skills that really make people succeed in life, right?

Tell you what, we'll both get an education and THEN you can become a plumber's apprentice and I won't. Then you'll still have the edge over plebes like me.

Okay, so now education is free. Anyone can go to post-secondary institutions. Now where does the money come from to accomplish this? Health care? Public works? University isn't high school. A proper university is expensive as fuck to run if you want a decent quality of education. You need to pay a fair amount to attract bright minds to teaching, you need money for the very expensive science equipment, you need money for grad students and research grants. You can't just magic that into existence. Some places can pull this off when they have a lower population and a high income, but big countries it just isn't feasible.

Don't get me wrong, what Americans charge for education is fucking ludicrous, especially when you set that side by side with the quality of education you actually receive. But to expect the government to pay for all of it is bloody asinine as well. I'm all for subsidizing education and making sure the best and brightest get the best education, but not everyone needs or belongs in a university. If they really want an education, I hear community college is cheap and accessible.

The system isn't perfect, but if you think education can be free and held to high standards, you're living in a dream world.

And this is coming from a man with four degrees.

And paid for all of them myself, thank you. Of course if I tried that in the States I'd be like, 70K in debt or so right now, I'm sure.

Just one degree can cost $70k in debt in this country.

They only cost so much because of artificial scarcity

People are buying up degrees in bulk on the cheap in foreign markets, forcing the value of the few remaining degrees into the stratosphere

Yeah, but I take funny joke degrees that you don't need to go to a really high end school to get.

Anthropology?

Hah.

P.S.

YouTube Video

The new Yale Admissions video.

Ivy League.

Business be serious.

When has anybody ever said this?

Birthday girl did.

In principle, I have no objection to providing free education for all. So long as "all" are willing to pay for it with taxes.

However, I question the "arms race" dimension of it all. Way back then, you can get by with a high school degree. Then, everyone's gotta get a college diploma. Pretty soon, you'll need a Master's. When does it stop?

A MS is actually seen as the entry-level degree in a lot of engineering fields. :cool:

Well someone please think about the children!!?

I was never big on welfare like most in my postion, but I'm not keen with the idea of children going to sleep starving in America.

Well I'm glad you're not a total monster. Good job on not being human filth.

That wasn't directed at me was it? :rolleyes: