And, if it costs me more in taxes, then I'm willing to pay those taxes

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

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

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

That's some good eatin' right there.

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

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

i agree with you on this Dabe

T-Bones

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

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

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

Lucas,

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

This is the problem, Dear Dabe.

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

I really hate these lousy, stupid, and blindly judgmental generalizations about who receives what.

I reread my statements Dabe, they are understandable enough, for anyone who really cares to understand them. For you though, I'll be glad to expound.

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

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

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

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

Clear enough?

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

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

Make no mistake, anyone (including myself) who finds themself in need of welfare programs that they didn't pay into or work towards, needs them because the people in their lives are willing to let the taxpayers take up our slack.

I agree with you in theory, but I differ in the same way you and I always seem to. You have to understand that we have an entire class of Americans that are hopelessly "reliant" on the social system we have. By reliant I mean they simply rufuse to do without them. Even if some people just fence them off to others, they'll STILL be outraged that they are losing what they fence.

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

In the end we'd put all the programs back, probably with more perks for the lazy, and it would take 50 years for anyone to attempt to end them again. What has to be done is a slow weening. People have to be made to earn the food stamps in some way, and the requirements for getting them should shave people off the top of the list a little at a time over a decade until only the truly impoverished get them, and then only temporarily.

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

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

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

I disagree with you in a way, what about those who are on social programs, and are barely able to be 'adequate' (think basic everything,no cable,internet,etc...) Sure they might want to help others, and want social programs to change, so that they and their family (if they have a family to care for) could be better off, what if they are unable to,hmmm...they are not lazy, they are surviving...

I think the main problem is that we have people out there that are lazy, those who do not wish to work and earn a decent living (decent can be defined by each persons own terms)If we could take them out, then there would remain those that struggle, but yet are unable,due to whatever circumstances, to meet terms ends...IMO

I mean can you IMAGINE what Senate Democrats would do with these leeches? How many "Little Jimmy Cornbread is starving in Podunk Appalachia tonight..." would we hear every day?

The ONLY calling card the Democrats have is the false belief that were it not for them the bottom 20% of America would starve. They would NEVER allow anyone to prove that people can do without their programs, because it would invalidate their existance.

I disagree with you in a way, what about those who are on social programs, and are barely able to be 'adequate' (think basic everything,no cable,internet,etc...) Sure they might want to help others, and want social programs to change, so that they and their family (if they have a family to care for) could be better off, what if they are unable to,hmmm...they are not lazy, they are surviving...

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



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

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

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

Wow I was sick of reading the thread and there was still so much more. Here's my two cents though.

whereas a federal program, such as food stamps, will guarantee that people will eat.

Not true. A major argument here is that food stamps are a commodity. Any paper of value can be traded. States like Louisiana and Texas have moved away from paper stamps and moved to a debit card system. This allows them to control what outlets are receiving the money. If Wal-Mart cashes in on $200,000.00 in a day no big deal, but if the mom and pop down the street does the same they will know something is fishy. I don't like the idea that most people on food stamps eat better than I do but life isn’t fair. States should all be using a debit based system. Paper has too many possibilities for fraud. With a debit based system fraud is still possible but it must be on a much smaller scale which makes it less profitable and less enticing.

Perhaps....BakerStreet

I don't like the idea that most people on food stamps eat better than I do

--not all do... we never had t-bones, or lobster,etc...

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

Wrong. You are generalizing, without concern for anyone's extenuating circumstances.

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

What corporate bottom line? Please be specific. And, wrong again. The food stamp program WAS established to help my son, and others like him. Unless you prove to me otherwise, and I do think your "proof" would be dubious at best, I continue to think that, in fact, my son is being helped, and that's the bottom line.

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

Wrong again. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. I have no problems with corporate profits. I do have problems with those profits being made off the backs of the workers and the people. You cannot tell me that a company like the Long Island Power Authority, who continue to raise rates to some of the highest in the country, and to which it's getting harder and harder for the average person to afford, is acceptable, when the CEO's are reaping huge, as in HUGE salaries, in the seven figures. They are not interested in workers or people. They are only interested in their own vast wealth, more than anyone can possibly spend. Sure, they contribute to charities. But, what about those in the middle who can neither benefit from the charities or afford the increasing rates? Again, I am not against making money. that's ridiculous.

Again, as for my son and our relationship, of course I would not let him starve. But, it's more complicated than that, and I'm not going to elaborate. I suspect it's alot more complicated for lots of people, and your judgmental simplicity is nothing but simplicity. And, judgmental crap.

What has to be done is a slow weening. People have to be made to earn the food stamps in some way, and the requirements for getting them should shave people off the top of the list a little at a time over a decade until only the truly impoverished get them, and then only temporarily.

See, and there you and I actually agree. I realize that to eliminate these programs overnight would be catastrophic, but I remain firm in my contention that they need to be eliminated.

BTW, you triggered a subject I was planning for another article.