House Votes to Cut Food Stamps

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[arnisador]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[arnisador]

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]

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]

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]

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.