# House Votes to Cut Food Stamps



## Makalakumu (Nov 1, 2005)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801237.html



> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - On a party-line vote, a Republican-run U.S. House of Representatives committee voted to cut food stamps by $844 million on Friday, just hours after a new government report showed more Americans are struggling to put food on the table.
> 
> 
> About 300,000 Americans would lose benefits due to tighter eligibility rules for food stamps, the major U.S. antihunger program, under the House plan. The cuts would be part of $3.7 billion pared from Agriculture Department programs over five years as part of government-wide spending reductions.


 
Does anyone ever wonder if the American public will wake up after all of these scandals and say, what the heck happened?  What other policy decisions are being kept on the down low?


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 1, 2005)

I have a statistic for people to consider. Of the people on welfare only 2% can work. The rest are elderly, or children. So they want to starve the elderly and children.

I think the scandals in the current white house are worse than what was in Clintons. Yet no mention of impeachment of Bush. Bush used a lie to get into Iraq...we now have over 2000 soldiers dead. This administration is one of the worst in U.S history in my opinion.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2005)

Only 2%? Can I get a source for that? I think you make a good point that many of these people are not able to work, but...2% are neither elderly nor children?!?


----------



## terryl965 (Nov 1, 2005)

No Money No Food No Housing, let see maybe we can all car pool over to bush's ranch in Crawford Texas and see if he will let every one in for Thanksgiving Dinner. What do you all think about it.
Terry


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 1, 2005)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> No Money No Food No Housing, let see maybe we can all car pool over to bush's ranch in Crawford Texas and see if he will let every one in for Thanksgiving Dinner. What do you all think about it.
> Terry


 
I think it is easy to blame president Bush for what many consider to be a bad policy decision, however, it is important to note that it is the House of Representatives that voted on this and that the vote went straight down party lines.  What this tells us is that there is a broader agenda at work.  By blaming president Bush, we may be gazing at the moon and missing the rest of the night sky.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 1, 2005)

THey want to stop the waste, maybe they should enforce the policies about not using food stamps for lotto and beer.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2005)

There's a fair amount of waste and abuse, yeah. But, at least they make some effort to force it to be spent on food--not just giving people cash.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 1, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Only 2%? Can I get a source for that? I think you make a good point that many of these people are not able to work, but...2% are neither elderly nor children?!?



I would like to see the source of those statistics too.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 1, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> THey want to stop the waste, maybe they should enforce the policies about not using food stamps for lotto and beer.


 
Me and my family have seen things like that... two people go into the store. one buys alot of beer with cash, another buys a bunch of steak with food stamps. they walk outside and exchange. I'm not in a state with lotto, so I've never seen that happen, but it would not suprise me.

Upnorth, if this limits the abuse of the system or encourages people to work for their food, then I'm all in favor of it. I agree that there are people who might need the services, but like any government system, its being abused. I'd love to see some of the people on the system, and get off of the governments tab (paid for by tax payers).

I'm big in favor of personal responsibility. 100 years ago we somehow survived w/out the civil services that exist today. People would not starve to death because their families or *gasp* churches would not let them.

BTW, I'm still waiting on the data Arnisador requested. I'd love to see your source too.

MrH


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 1, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I'm big in favor of personal responsibility. 100 years ago we somehow survived w/out the civil services that exist today. People would not starve to death because their families or *gasp* churches would not let them.



Times have changed.

Tithing is not done by most, and without a single church in power is impossible.  So we have tax, and the gov't gets the job of feeding the poor.

Countries should feed there poor, and if possible try to train them and get them work.

2% I think is a little off for "Children and Elderly", I think there are also going to be a good number of dissabled, single parents, etc.  

ANY system is going to get abused, not just by the poor.  White collar tax fraud, politicians taking bribes...sorry.. "Campaign Contributions", Anti-competitve practices by large corporations, etc.  People that are not just barely surviving are abusing "the system" a lot more significantly then the single mother trying to feed and cloth 4 children.  

Yet, it's that single mom getting the finger pointed at her.  It seems like going after the teenager with a joint and ignoring the Druglords... 

But, it's the big abusers that can control the system, and point the finger, and take the attention off themselves.  

Does anyone really think they are in there situation by choice?  That some people just decide, forget this working nonsense, I'm just gonna go on wellfare and barely survive, have most of the population look down on me, and blame me for societies problems...

If the situation is to be improved, it means more money has to go into social programs, not less.  Give those that have no choice a choice.  Offer them training, give nutrition advice, addictions councilling.  Making their situation worse makes it harder to get out of it, it won't motivate them to get a job, it makes it even harder for them to do so.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 1, 2005)

NYS gives folks a card with a cash allotment. It's supposed to go towards the non-food necessities.  You know, toothpaste, soap, TP, diapers, etc. But, I've seen quite a few buy lotto on it, arguing that its 'their money'.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 1, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Does anyone really think they are in there situation by choice? That some people just decide, forget this working nonsense, I'm just gonna go on wellfare and barely survive, have most of the population look down on me, and blame me for societies problems...


Actually the ones I personally know, yes, it WAS their choice. If I know a few, I am sure there are MANY who know a few. But they go under the radar. These people (I know) were looking for the right excuse, the right story, the right "accident" to do it. Of course these people lack the drive to want better. They are basically slackers who are quite happy just existing as is.

I am not saying they represent the majority or anything. Just I am pointing out that those people DO exist and to people who have never met someone like that, they think it inconceivable that someone could be that way. But there are plenty of them out there.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 1, 2005)

Instead of cutting the program, wouldn't it make more sense to enforce existing rules?  IMO, the fact that people abuse the system is being used as an excuse to advance a radical social policy.  I don't see how cutting funds will somehow enforce existing rules...


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 1, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Instead of cutting the program, wouldn't it make more sense to enforce existing rules? IMO, the fact that people abuse the system is being used as an excuse to advance a radical social policy. I don't see how cutting funds will somehow enforce existing rules...



I agree with this, the problem is how do you enforce it?

I used to work a third job on weekends at a gas station/convieneince store to pay my rent... every saturday morning the same woman would come in in her brand new luxury car, in clothing more expensive than anything i could afford working three jobs, and use her food stamps to buy food.

She clearly had a source of income, and, with the proximity to the section 8 housing project the gas station I worked at was in, I no doubt assume it was Drugs or Prostitution, both of which are rampant there.  How do you determine THAT person is ineligable for foodstamps because she is technically unemployed...

Enforcement is a *****.

This cut is a stupid solution to the problem mind you, Im just saying I dont see a good one.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 1, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Instead of cutting the program, wouldn't it make more sense to enforce existing rules? IMO, the fact that people abuse the system is being used as an excuse to advance a radical social policy. I don't see how cutting funds will somehow enforce existing rules...


I don't know if they can ever fully enforce the rules. As someone hinted at in an earlier post, the government is filling a role that used to be done by families, churches, and communities. They pretty much looked out for their own. So the federal government has taken over this role (why I do not know). In the previous periods in history with people being helped at the community level, it was far more granual and people couldn't get away with abusing the system, because they had to face their helpers in their day to day lives. Now, the government is this huge monolithic organization that lacks the granularity to enforce the rules everywhere. At best they can hope to stop the worst offenders.


----------



## CrankyDragon (Nov 1, 2005)

Gotta pay for the war effort some how.....


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2005)

The problem is that enforcing the rules would be so very expensive. How do you stop something like the exchange outside the store described previously?


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 1, 2005)

You know, I was thinking there are programs related to what we are talking about, more particularly the health cards or whatever each state calls it. I know people who are leaders of local churches who rake in a pretty darn good income that encourage the use of the government subsidized health cards. The reason this really irks me is that they are relatives of mine and while I had to work and pay for insurance for my family they exploit the system while making a better income than I and mine isn't bad. So that is another exploit that goes under the radar because they hide their money under their religious institutions.

EDIT:  It also speaks volumes about religious institutions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 1, 2005)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> I don't know if they can ever fully enforce the rules. As someone hinted at in an earlier post, the government is filling a role that used to be done by families, churches, and communities. They pretty much looked out for their own. So the federal government has taken over this role (why I do not know).


 
My grand parents lived through the great depression and many of these social programs came about as a result of the New Deal.  There never has been a private or religious safety net in this country.  The government was the only entity large enough to tackle a problem of poverty.  Private institutions and religious institutions have never (and probably will never) have the kind of power it needs to replace the governments role in combating poverty.  

The bottom line is that if you look at poverty rate statistics, you'd absolutely be amazed at how effectively our social programs have lowered the rates of poverty in this country.  Why mess with something that works?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 1, 2005)

WIC is another social program that provides aid to lower income people.  This program has lists of approved items and not approved items that it can be used for...things like baby formula and healthy foods for example.  WIC participants are issued a card that electronically compares the users purchases with a database of approved items.  Purchases that are not approved are denied.  Why not roll food stamps into this program?  All items that people are buy that abuse the system could be put on the banned database.  

Instead, the House votes to cut funding.  IMO that isn't a solution to the problem of abuse.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 1, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> many of these social programs came about as a result of the New Deal.


Actually after I wrote that message, I remembered the "New Deal". IMHO it should be called the "Raw Deal" for many other reasons, but that is another thread. I also had grand parents that lived through it, actually, my family has been here since 1635.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There never has been a private or religious safety net in this country.


I agree... not in the sense of an organized "safety net". Outside of areas that had large immigrant populations where communities were much closer, there was more support for people there. Again, it wasn't organized or under institutions.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 1, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> WIC is another social program that provides aid to lower income people. This program has lists of approved items and not approved items that it can be used for...things like baby formula and healthy foods for example. WIC participants are issued a card that electronically compares the users purchases with a database of approved items. Purchases that are not approved are denied. Why not roll food stamps into this program? All items that people are buy that abuse the system could be put on the banned database.
> 
> Instead, the House votes to cut funding.  IMO that isn't a solution to the problem of abuse.


That is a start. But I think the biggest offenders are the ones that don't really need it and use it (like the situation that TechnoPunk pointed out).


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 1, 2005)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> That is a start. But I think the biggest offenders are the ones that don't really need it and use it (like the situation that TechnoPunk pointed out).


 
I see this point, however, I think that we can come up with different ways to address it.  I don't see how cutting the funding for the program addresses this problem.  I do see how cutting funding to the program solves the problem if one thinks that _social programs_ are the problem.  It seems as if we have an outer and an inner level to this rhetoric.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 1, 2005)

CrankyDragon said:
			
		

> Gotta pay for the war effort some how.....


  That is what I thought too.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 1, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I don't see how cutting the funding for the program addresses this problem. I do see how cutting funding to the program solves the problem if one thinks that _social programs_ are the problem.


It could be a subtle way of passing on the responsibility. For example, but cutting the money, it forces the agency to reassess who qualifies. It may indirectly force them to change their criteria or at the very least review those already on the system. Just a thought. I used to work in government and they do things like that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 1, 2005)

I find it interesting that the people making these decisions
- Don't have to pay for hair cuts
- Get free air travel
- Get cars paid for by us
- Have medical coverage
- Eat regularly, and often quite well.

Mean while, the people mostly effected by this
- often have to rely on public transportation
- either pay for hair cuts, or do it themselves
- Have little to no medical coverage
- Eat when they can, and often poorly.

I think every one of these 'leaders' should be required to spend a week in homeless shelters, living as they do, eating as they do, etc.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 1, 2005)

When i find the source i used i will post it. I believe it was in my Sociology book. I will have to dig because I'm not sure what chapter it was in. (one of those side note things in text books that only geeks like me look at.) I do think the disabled were in there too....sorry.

To let people know it is not a fun thing to be on assistance. I'm speaking from experience. I'm not saying people don't take advantage of it. Many of the people I know are trying but just can't get by. Specially in this area that is very economically troubled. Before you look down on someone who is on assistance don't just think they are making excuses.

I am on assistance. People look down on me all the time. Lets go back a few years. I started working after high school in a factory. I was working 12 hours for practically nothing. Bills piled up even when I was not spending money on anything. Electric, Gas, all the things in life you can't get past. We started accumulating bills and no way to pay them. I was not about to get anyone involved.

Finally my daughter was born and the costs just got higher. I then decided i was going to go to school. We applied for assistance. After a process nothing short of anal probing they approved us. Income, etc all had to be sent in for verification. You practically have to allow them to monitor your life. Which is fine with me because of the people who do try to abuse it. Trust me though it sometimes is not fun.

I started school with loans and grants of my own. My parents did not have to pay a cent. Not that they could because they were paying on my sisters school loans. So by not burdening them I had to do something that I did not want to do. The choice was hard, but i made it for my family. Working, school, raising children. That is the short version. Struggling doesn't even describe what we go through sometimes. Not to mention the fact that everyone looks down upon you. (I have learned not to care, because I am going to bring something to society...posibly more than those looking down on me). What do I have to show for it. Well hopefully I will be making a good deal of money....eventually paying it back with the good old tax dollars. Oh yeah can't forget the fact that I will be graduating with a Bachelors in Business Management, an Associates in Business Information Systems, and 4 certificates (computer technology support professional, e-commerce support professional, entrepreneurship, retail management.)

I have had jobs while going to school full time. The thing is when you have a job they cut your benefits so much that you simply start getting behind again. It is kind of like they don't want you to get off it. My question used to be why not reward the ones who are doing something to better themselves. Then i thought to myself this system although not perfect is reward enough. I'm able to live although it is very hard. Those whom are not trying to better themselves give everyone who is on it a bad name. Sometimes it only takes a few bad people to discredit a large group who are trying to get off that system.

My family is not rich, the churches around here struggle to get by...and the industries are moving out....short of moving there is no saftey blanket. I will survive...no matter what. Don't assume you know ones situation by observing how they act. (i learned that one the hard way)


----------



## arnisador (Nov 2, 2005)

I'm all for public assistance, and I know that most people make good use of it. That's great. It's insurance for all of us.

The abuses are highly visible, the success stories less so. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 2, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The abuses are highly visible, the success stories less so. Thanks for sharing!



Just depends on where you are looking.  If you are looking where certain politicians show, you'll see abuses.

I work for a community based organization.  We train people on assistance, get them College Diplommas and get them jobs.  The success stories are there, and given what some people have to go through to get what is still a fairly low level job, some of the stories are quite amazing.

Do I see abuses?  sometimes.  Are they any worse then abuses of the system, emplyoer, etc by those with good jobs?  No.

Abusing the system is not something unique to people on assistance, they just get the most press for it.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 2, 2005)

It's that Compassionate Conservativism.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think it is easy to blame president Bush for what many consider to be a bad policy decision, however, it is important to note that it is the House of Representatives that voted on this and that the vote went straight down party lines. What this tells us is that there is a broader agenda at work. By blaming president Bush, we may be gazing at the moon and missing the rest of the night sky.


 On that point you're right.  It's actually pure idiocy to blame Bush for this.  Anyone who studies policy understand that Bush is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a fiscal conservative.  He's NEVER vetoed a spending bill.  The source of this cut is from fiscal conservatives in congress.  Blame them.

That having been said, who are the 300,000 people who's benefits are going to be cut?  I know quite a large number of foodstamp recipients who really don't want to work.  It strikes that if 300,000 are losing their benefits, we aren't talking about the elderly.  It's very likely we are talking about a segment of food stamp recipients who really shouldn't qualify.  

Before we start declaring a class war, lets see the truth about what's really being recommended.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 6, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that the people making these decisions
> - Don't have to pay for hair cuts
> - Get free air travel
> - Get cars paid for by us
> ...


  I'm with you on the first part, cutting government perks that cost tax payers money is a good idea.  Those guys should take a bus sometime.  Using government perks isn't the sole domain of economic conservatives, however.  Some of the biggest offenders wouldn't vote to cut a spending bill if their life depended on it...for that very reason.  

As for the second part, why should anyone have to spend a week in a homeless shelter to know A) It's a bad thing and B) KNOW how not to end up there?  It's like saying that I should have to burn my hand, so that I can learn that fire's a bad thing and that burn victims suffer.  It's really unnecessary.  

Life's tough, this planet is NOT a paradise, and never will be.  The society and system we have has done more good for more people than ANY society in the history of the world.  That some people fall through the cracks is not a testament to the failure of the system, but evidence of an imperfect world in which it is not possible to have a perfect paradise.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 6, 2005)

When you don't have to worry about lifes necessities, when your food is bought, and prepared for you, when you have a nice home, a couple cars, and no worries about where you're going to sleep tonight, it becomes too easy to not understand when you have none of that. I don't have to burn myself, at some point, I did.  The person voting to cut these things, should spend some time using it before they decide to cut it. Let them spend a week on just a weeks worth of food stamps.  And, definately take away their gold card.

I still say the system should be better policed to get rid of the cheats. It serves a good purpose, it's just the scumbags that ruin it.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 6, 2005)

Would someone be so kind as to explain "Food Stamps" to me?  Is it meant just for food?  What about your housing benefits, etc.?  Being from Canada, we don't have "Food Stamps" per say but have a social assistance program.  The rates are determined by your needs such as how many people in your family, age of children, etc.  There is a monthly allowance for food, shelter, clothing, etc.  However, it isn't very much.  My mom used to be a case worker with them.  To make your money last the month, you would have to be extremely frugal.  Many ended up applying for emergency assistance, especially if their kids ended up sick.  There were no extras such as a phone line, unless you were extremely sick and it was deemed necessary for medical emergencies.

I am just curious as to how the food stamp system works...is "food stamp" an actual stamp? or a figure of speech?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 6, 2005)

At one time (and it may still be this way in some parts) you got a book with tear out "food money" in various denominations. The amount was based in part on need/family size/# kids, etc.  Now, in my area at least, it's a debit card.

There are rules on what it can and can't be used for.
No booze or tobaco are 2 restrictions.

Heres the NY info http://www.otda.state.ny.us/otda/fs/fs_default.htm


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2005)

Here's what really boils my blood, the military can buy $400 dollar hammers and $5000 dollar toilet seats and no one ever thinks to cut that social program, much less even watch closely where the money goes.  But, if some poor person sells food stamps to buy a six pack, all hell breaks loose.  

The irony in all of this is stupendous.  

Wellfare programs (excluding social security and health care) make up 1.5% of our federal budget.  There are alot bigger fish to fry when it comes to government waste.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 6, 2005)

Defense? For pork, people keep talking about the "Bridge to Nowhere" that you're going to help Alaska build (from Ketchikan to its airport across the river). It'll only cost you about $223 million--Alaska is going to come up with the other $80 million or so that's needed.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 6, 2005)

The "Stamps" really aren't stamps anymore. In most states they have gone to a system that works just like debit cards. You get your monthly "stamps" at the beginning of the month. You can only spend it on food. The machine will seperate anything that you can not buy with them.

Same thing for cash assistance, but that you can use on anything. Most people just draw it from a bank ATM because many place don't accept it. Usually only places that accept stamps.....hope that clears things up for you.

The system is almost fully automated.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Here's what really boils my blood, the military can buy $400 dollar hammers and $5000 dollar toilet seats and no one ever thinks to cut that social program, much less even watch closely where the money goes. But, if some poor person sells food stamps to buy a six pack, all hell breaks loose.
> 
> The irony in all of this is stupendous.
> 
> Wellfare programs (excluding social security and health care) make up 1.5% of our federal budget. There are alot bigger fish to fry when it comes to government waste.


 $400 hammers and $5000 toilet seats seats...now that's nostalgia.  What you're referring to there is, in many cases, contractor fraud...they should be doing time in federal prison.  Why is it suddenly, if you support cutting social programs for those who abuse them, you're automatically for $400 hammers?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 7, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> $400 hammers and $5000 toilet seats seats...now that's nostalgia. What you're referring to there is, in many cases, contractor fraud...they should be doing time in federal prison. Why is it suddenly, if you support cutting social programs for those who abuse them, you're automatically for $400 hammers?


 
Its not that one is for $400 dollar hammers, its that when it comes to trimming actual fat, focusing on welfare programs really isn't going to cut very much.  There are bigger fish to fry and I think that waste in these catagories should have a lower priority then waste in another, far more wasteful catagory.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 7, 2005)

the thing about the $400 hammers and such....I remember some of that and a lot of it really came down to two things. 

1) Requirements - I remember the coffee maker deal.  Thing was, it wasn't an average coffee maker, the requirement was fo a coffee make that could deliver hot coffee in a airplane that was a troop transport that could be banking for a turn like a minute before the troops parachutted out.  Silly requirement, but that's why the coffee maker ended up being so expensive

2) Specs - Since the govt. doesn't really make anything, they just spec out what they need to buy and let contractors meet the specs and provide the...whatever....  Everything is spec'd out, all the way down to how many stitches-per-inch in an undershirt.  A hammer may still cost $4.95 or something, but going through the process of proving the hammer meets specs kicks the price way up.

I was in the Air Force in the early to mid 90s and people were a lot more cost-concious of the things they bought then in the days of the reported $500 hammer


----------

