Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Government wants more people on food stamps


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#1 TakeAStepBack

  • VibeTribe
  • 16,887 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:06 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/economy/food-stamps-ads/

Government wants more people on food stamps



NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- More than one in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the federal government wants even more people to sign up for the safety net program.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been running radio ads for the past four months encouraging those eligible to enroll. The campaign is targeted at the elderly, working poor, the unemployed and Hispanics


The department is spending between $2.5 million and $3 million on paid spots, and free public service announcements are also airing. The campaign can be heard in California, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, and the New York metro area.
"Research has shown that many people -- particularly underserved seniors, working poor, and legal immigrants -- do not understand the requirements of the program," said Kevin Concannon, a USDA under secretary.
The radio ads, which run through June 30, come amid a bitter partisan fight over the safety net program. Republican lawmakers want to reduce funding for the benefit or turn it into a block grant program, which would also minimize the cost. Democrats, however, are not willing to make major cuts.
The issue has become so heated that Newt Gingrich called President Obama the "food stamp president" to show how he's increased government spending.
Food stamp enrollment certainly shot up during the Great Recession, though it had been rising for more than a decade.
President Bush launched a recruitment campaign, which pushed average participation up by 63% during his eight years in office. The USDA began airing paid radio spots in 2004.
President Obama's stimulus act made it easier for childless, jobless adults to qualify for the program and increased the monthly benefit by about 15% through 2013.
Getting off government assistance
Some 46.4 million people are in the food stamps program, also known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. That's just a touch below the record high hit in January.
Still, more than one in four Americans eligible for food stamps do not participate, according to USDA records.
And the rate is much lower among the the elderly and people just above the poverty line. Nearly two-thirds of folks in these categories aren't enrolled.
In one ad, an elderly woman is surprised to learn that her friend is on food stamps. The friend explains that now that she's retired and on a fixed income, the program "helps me eat right when money's tight."
"Millions of low-income seniors struggle to afford life's necessities like food and medicine," said Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Enrolling in SNAP can help ease that struggle."


Deficit hawks, however, don't want to see the government spend more money on food stamps at a time when lawmakers are trying to reduce the size of the federal government. The deficit for fiscal 2012 is projected to top $1 trillion for the fourth year in a row.
In fiscal 2011, the federal government spent more than $75 billion on food stamps, up from $34.6 billion at the end of fiscal 2008, according to the USDA.
"We ought to be looking for ways to save money in the program, not to encourage more people to use it," said Chris Edwards, an economist with the Cato Institute, a libertarian organization




:rolling:

Ser. :lmao: :lmao:

#2 TakeAStepBack

  • VibeTribe
  • 16,887 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:27 PM

Some absolute gems from the comments section:



The National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals."
Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
Hmm.....

:rolling:



obama is the foodstamp president


ROFLMAO!!! Newt's made his "mark".



Dependency on government=slavery=Democrat votes.

#3 Spidergawd

  • VibeTribe
  • 13,650 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 07:22 PM

Let the poor folks starve, cuz I don't want 5$ from my check going to that crap. I need to save that $5 for my next iPhone. It's what the market would want.

#4 TakeAStepBack

  • VibeTribe
  • 16,887 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 07:46 PM

Hardly. if the government is taking $5 from my cheeck, how much of that actually gets to the mouths of those on assistance? $2? Maybe $2.50?

There are charitable centers all over this nation that do not confiscate wealth to achieve their goal of feeding and sheltering less fortunate folks. And "poor" in america is the ripest bunch of bullshit ever perpetrated by the dems. Most "poor" people in america have 2 color tvs, housing, food, xbox, transportation and more.

But take the cheap "I don't understand what Im poking fun of" shot at it anyway, JP. That always makes for lively conversations.

#5 Smiles

  • VibeTribe
  • 1,775 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:12 PM

What percentage of the deficit would be solved by eliminating food stamps? Like almost nothing percent? Cool. What percentage would the deficit increase by encouraging people who are already eligible to sign up and participate? Oh like less than almost nothing percent? Cool.

Malnutrition is a major problem. When people don't have access to real food, they feed themselves and their kids cheap crap with no nutritive value that actually makes them sick. Children suffer the most and they have no choice. We WILL pay for letting/helping people starve, one way or another.

I think Spider understood exactly what he was making fun of.

#6 Smiles

  • VibeTribe
  • 1,775 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:13 PM

Are charitable organizations any better at delivering aide with less overhead?

#7 Spidergawd

  • VibeTribe
  • 13,650 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:15 PM

I understand just fine, but that doesn't mean I won't be irreverent. That's my way. Please don't assume that because I'm that way that I don't know anything or am otherwise uninformed. Mostly, I choose to abstain from many of these conversations because it's become too contentious, and many here I consider my friends. Plus, my statement above, while irreverent, appears to me to be exactly where you (not personally, more of a collective conservative/libertarian you) are coming from.

If you think that your donation to a "charitable center" gives 100% of your donation to those in need, you're kidding yourself. Most charities keep over half (or even way more) of the donations for "administrative expenses". At least there is some transparency to government agencies, whereas with many charities there is none. Also on this topic, I'd say the large majority of charities are religious in nature. As an atheist, I don't support them.

While I agree that compared to "poor" in many places around the globe it's relatively better here, I vehemently disagree with you that poverty in the US is bullshit. There are thousands and thousands of people here who are homeless, hungry, don't know how they will feed their kids, become more and more ill from easily treatable conditions and basically have run out of options. Even among our own community this can/has happened. Would you be willing to live like that for six months, Dave, so you can prove that it's bullshit? I'm guessing you wouldn't care for that at all.

My problem with the purely libertarian/conservative view on topics like this is that it all boils down to fiscal issues. You don't want to be "forced" to pay for anyone else for any reason, and believe that "The Market" will solve all problems for our populace. It comes, IMO, from a position of selfishness. Personally, I'll stick with the altruism side of the continuum. My conscience is better off that way. Plus, the whole concept of our govt arose from a desire to protect and assist "the commons". I think many have lost sight of that, and it's a tragedy for our country.

I respect your opinions, and really respect you - I've learned a lot by reading your threads. I simply don't agree with a good deal of it.

One question: Is there an example of a pure libertarian government that has ever worked for more than, let's say, two generations?

#8 Spidergawd

  • VibeTribe
  • 13,650 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:16 PM

Thank you Smiles. I agree.

#9 TakeAStepBack

  • VibeTribe
  • 16,887 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:18 PM

So then, why not just make everyone eligible? Lets put everyone on assistance or supplement. Shit, we can all have some since no one is obviously going to pay for it anyway. You think people that get assistance eat nutritious meals? Is that why WIC EBT and other programs of this nature tend to only cover the very shit food you're saying that people gorge themselves on?

How about that war on poverty? Have we won yet? How much more money will the govt. confiscate to achieve their goal of no poverty? How much more wealth will we squander and just how much more entitlement will we have to give out? Why not give everyone a home too? A car? I mean, shit, if we're not going to pay for it anyway, lets all get in on it. Everyone can stop working and we can make a real utopia party here.

1 in 7 on the stamps? Lets make that 7 of 7 and cut the bullshit.

#10 TakeAStepBack

  • VibeTribe
  • 16,887 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:24 PM

Lets stay on the topic of FAILING ENTITLEMENTS WE CAN NOT PAY FOR and side step the peacefrog channel change, if you dont mind.

If you really think even half of these "eligible" people that get these programs are actually in need of the assistance, you're wrong. These programs are festering with corruption, abuse and scams. We have trillions in unfunded liabilities for SS, medicare and medicaid. In the ballpark of, in some estimates, over 100 trillion.

Where are we going to pay for this stuff? Just print more money to pay the interest on debts?


Does this type of thing actually help people better themselves, or is this type of thing creating laziness and disintives to go out there and actually earn a living?

1 in 7?

#11 TakeAStepBack

  • VibeTribe
  • 16,887 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:25 PM

If you think that your donation to a "charitable center" gives 100% of your donation to those in need, you're kidding yourself. Most charities keep over half (or even way more) of the donations for "administrative expenses". At least there is some transparency to government agencies, whereas with many charities there is none. Also on this topic, I'd say the large majority of charities are religious in nature. As an atheist, I don't support them.

I dont give a fuck. They are not FORCING ME to pay. It's a voluntary act, not a forced one.

#12 Smiles

  • VibeTribe
  • 1,775 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:26 PM

Is that why WIC EBT and other programs of this nature tend to only cover the very shit food you're saying that people gorge themselves on?

That is incorrect. There are also programs in place to help encourage people on assistance to eat healthier. One is run by my state's university and has had some success.

The rest of your argument once again relies on the slippery slope fallacy, that giving an inch results in a mile. In reality not the case.

#13 Spidergawd

  • VibeTribe
  • 13,650 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:27 PM

For starters, how 'bout we actually educate people?? Education in this country has become the lowest priority, especially for those not born into white privilege like most of us here. How the hell is anyone supposed to know how to take care of themselves intelligently with no real education? That would be a nice place to start.

Have we won the "war on..." anything?? Poverty, drugs, crime, anything? Perhaps we could get closer if we chose to prioritize improving people's lives rather than locking them up (in private, "market" driven prisons, btw.)

So you justify the selfishness by taking things to a logical (well, illogical) extreme? I don't buy it. Sure, there will be abuse. Sure, there are fucking dicks that will take advantage of anything they can. I am not prepared to sacrifice everyone who is trying their best and still getting dragged down because of that.

#14 Spidergawd

  • VibeTribe
  • 13,650 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:31 PM

I dont give a fuck. They are not FORCING ME to pay. It's a voluntary act, not a forced one.


That is precisely why the charitable side will never solve the problem better than the govt side. Public funding takes selfishness off the table to a large degree. It also is reasonably blind in it's disbursement of assistance. I think there's certainly room for both, but I will defend the public side strongly.

#15 TakeAStepBack

  • VibeTribe
  • 16,887 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:32 PM

Jesus, the bleeding heart arguments. But yes, wishing to have liberty adn not be forced by arbitrary and despotic govt. certainly is selfish. It is exactly what this country was founded on. the idea of idividual liberties.

It seems people prefer the despotic government instead. With its arbitrary rules to make a "better society". You know, because us humans are dumb fucking heebs that cant manage to live without someone else telling us how.

#16 Julius

  • VibeTribe
  • 8,575 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:33 PM

I don't know about other states but CA has this "EBT" thing that allows a portion of benefits to be spent on non-food items. BAD. It is supposed to be so recipients can get things like toilet paper and tin foil but ends up being used for candy and booze because it is so easily negotiable as a currency. That shit I do NOT want to subsidize.

But in general, food stamps are an excellent way to distribute benefits, IMO. Whether eligibility should be advertised on TV so those who are unaware they qualify? Not so sure about that one.

#17 TakeAStepBack

  • VibeTribe
  • 16,887 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:33 PM

That is precisely why the charitable side will never solve the problem better than the govt side. Public funding takes selfishness off the table to a large degree. It also is reasonably blind in it's disbursement of assistance. I think there's certainly room for both, but I will defend the public side strongly.


The problem isnt being sovled this way either. It s actually exacerbating it by bankrupting the country.


I suppose you guys just think money grows on teh magic tree too. Bernanke thanks you.

#18 Spidergawd

  • VibeTribe
  • 13,650 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:34 PM

I don't know about other states but CA has this "EBT" thing that allows a portion of benefits to be spent on non-food items. BAD. It is supposed to be so recipients can get things like toilet paper and tin foil but ends up being used for candy and booze because it is so easily negotiable as a currency. That shit I do NOT want to subsidize.

But in general, food stamps are an excellent way to distribute benefits, IMO. Whether eligibility should be advertised on TV so those who are unaware they qualify? Not so sure about that one.


I don't disagree with either of these paragraphs. There is room to clean up the abuses of the system, but the system itself is a sound concept.

#19 TakeAStepBack

  • VibeTribe
  • 16,887 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:34 PM

slippery slope fallacy. 1 in 7 adn Im on the slippery end of the slope. It's absolutely hopeless.

#20 Smiles

  • VibeTribe
  • 1,775 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:35 PM

I'm curious as to why your heart doesn't bleed.

#21 Tim the Beek

  • VibeTribe
  • 13,277 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:35 PM

I realize that I'm dwelling on one issue lately, as it's become very clear to me, for me, the importance of it, but this also amounts to a subsidy for Big Ag/big food processors. That bothers me.

#22 Spidergawd

  • VibeTribe
  • 13,650 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:40 PM

Jesus, the bleeding heart arguments. But yes, wishing to have liberty adn not be forced by arbitrary and despotic govt. certainly is selfish. It is exactly what this country was founded on. the idea of idividual liberties.


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The COMMONS brehm. It's not just about you or me. It's about ALL of us. THAT is exactly what this country was founded on.

It seems people prefer the despotic government instead. With its arbitrary rules to make a "better society". You know, because us humans are dumb fucking heebs that cant manage to live without someone else telling us how.


No, we can't. It's been proven throughout the history of mankind that left to our own devices we will hoard, kill and pillage to get what we want. This system was among the first to mitigate that to at least some extent. I'm not going to give that up so you don't have to pay your fair share. Sorry.

BTW - still waiting for an example of a pure libertarian system that worked for more than two generations.

#23 vic

  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:41 PM

i decided to leave P&R (and the board itself for the most part) because of this arrogant line of thinking you started to ram down our throats...funny how you've taken such a harsh tone over the past year mostly aimed at those in need...mayhaps, dave, you should get your nose out of all those economics brainwash bullshit books you've immersed yourself in whenever you did

#24 jnjn

  • VibeTribe
  • 6,365 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:42 PM

I realize that I'm dwelling on one issue lately, as it's become very clear to me, for me, the importance of it, but this also amounts to a subsidy for Big Ag/big food processors. That bothers me.


because the most affordable items to purchase are not "real food" items likes fruits & vegetables, but rather processed garbage out of a box. education & creativity are key when it comes to getting the most nutrition out of food stamps or budget.

#25 Spidergawd

  • VibeTribe
  • 13,650 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:43 PM

I realize that I'm dwelling on one issue lately, as it's become very clear to me, for me, the importance of it, but this also amounts to a subsidy for Big Ag/big food processors. That bothers me.


I don't disagree Tim, but that's another issue entirely. I'd be much happier if it weren't the case, but it is, and I think we should address that and try to change it independently from this issue. The food must come from somewhere, and until we have a better, healthier and more local production chain, we can't avoid it. So let's fix that separately, ASAP.

#26 Julius

  • VibeTribe
  • 8,575 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:55 PM

I realize that I'm dwelling on one issue lately, as it's become very clear to me, for me, the importance of it, but this also amounts to a subsidy for Big Ag/big food processors. That bothers me.


Organic food is for rich people!

#27 Spidergawd

  • VibeTribe
  • 13,650 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:57 PM

You think people that get assistance eat nutritious meals? Is that why WIC EBT and other programs of this nature tend to only cover the very shit food you're saying that people gorge themselves on?


Can't speak for EBT from experience, but regarding WIC I'm afraid you've got some conservative misinformation there. When I was right out of college, struggling to find a career while working 5 part-time jobs, we had an unplanned child. We utilized the Illinois WIC program, and I was DAMN thankful it was there. It ONLY allows healthy items - no junk food, soda, white bread (only whole grain breads and cereals) or sugary stuff (even sugared juices).

Here's a partial list of item-eligibility FAQs from Illinios:

Food Item Questions by Group Category

Grains Group

  • Bread
    Bread will read as "1 - 16 oz package Whole Wheat Bread". Whole Wheat Pita Bread is not allowable
  • Other Grains
    Will read as "1 - 16 oz package Brown Rice or Soft Corn Tortillas or Oatmeal".
  • Oatmeal - Source for 16 oz container
    • The only Oatmeal allowed will be in one pound containers (old fashioned, traditional, or quick cook) with no added flavors.
    • "Rolled Oats" is allowed.
    • Quaker Instant Oatmeal is removed and is not allowed.
    • Sources of product:
      • Malto Meal Mom's Best Naturals(momsbestnaturals.com) carried by Wal-Mart and
      • Wild Harvest 100% Whole Grain Rolled Oats supplied by SuperValu.
  • Corn Tortilla. Types
    Yes. Only soft and whole grain; white or yellow is allowed.
  • Cereals
    • Only variety of Complete Bran Flakes allowed will be Wheat.
    • Only Store Brand Shredded Wheat is allowed (plain or frosted).
    • All varieties of Kellogg's Frosted Mini Wheats are not allowed.
    • Cream of Wheat must be the new product that says "Whole Grain" on the package.
Milk Group
  • Cheese
    No. Shredded cheese is not allowed. No individually wrapped cheese.
Meats & Beans Group
  • Canned Fish

    Canned fish means only "Tuna and Salmon" in Illinois.
    Tuna or Salmon will list the ounces as in 6 - 5 oz cans. Participants may choose any combination of allowable product.
  • Beans
    • Will still be listed as 16 oz dry beans.
    • Canned Beans allowed when listed on the WIC Food Instrument.
Fruits & Vegetables Group
  • Baby Fruits and Vegetables: Definition of Plain
    • Plain means just fruits or vegetables; nothing else.
    • The container may have a mix of fruits (apple and bananas) (peas and carrots)
      Note: Gerber Apple/Strawberry/Banana three fruit mixture is allowed. No added sugar or flour/cereal turning it into a dessert or a dinner.
      No DHA and no organic.
  • Bagged salad kits
    No. Bagged salad kits that include croutons, dressing and other non-vegetable items are not allowed.
  • Baking soda in frozen spinach and ascorbic acid in frozen fruit
    Yes. It is allowed.
  • Dry Chilies
    No. Counted as a spice.
  • Dates?
    No. Dried fruits are not listed in Illinois. (Even if listed, most products would be excluded by addition of sugars or salts in the drying process.)
  • Garlic?
    Yes. Bulbs of raw garlic are allowed.
    No. Ornamental strings of garlic are not allowed.
  • Hominy?
    Yes. It is allowed.
  • Juices?
    No. Pomegranate and cherry juice stocked in produce section are not included with name brands on juice list that are followed by (all flavors); not allowed.
  • Mushrooms?
    Yes. Fresh or canned is allowed.
    No. Dried is not allowed.
  • Potatoes?
    Yes. Only Sweet potatoes and yams are allowed.
    No. White potatoes are not allowed.
    No. Red potatoes and Russets are white potatoes and not allowed. Cut one with a knife if you must.
  • Pumpkins?
    Yes. If for cooking/baking and food consumption, then is allowed.
    No. Ornamental gourds and PAINTED pumpkins are not allowed.
  • Salad Bar Items: What is the definition?
    Anything sold from a ready to eat salad bar.
    No. Items are not allowed that come off the salad bar.
    Yes. The same fruits or vegetables may be eligible if picked up from another location.
  • Tomato paste (canned)
    Yes. It is allowed.
  • Bamboo Shoots (canned,fresh)
    Yes. It is allowed.
  • Water Chestnuts (canned)
    Yes. It is allowed.
  • Bean Sprouts (canned,fresh.) Saw yesterday where Michigan disallows
    Yes. It is allowed.



#28 PeaceFrog

  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 26 June 2012 - 09:06 PM

good discussion.

#29 Tim the Beek

  • VibeTribe
  • 13,277 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 09:15 PM

because the most affordable items to purchase are not "real food" items likes fruits & vegetables, but rather processed garbage out of a box. education & creativity are key when it comes to getting the most nutrition out of food stamps or budget.


For sure.

I don't disagree Tim, but that's another issue entirely. I'd be much happier if it weren't the case, but it is, and I think we should address that and try to change it independently from this issue. The food must come from somewhere, and until we have a better, healthier and more local production chain, we can't avoid it. So let's fix that separately, ASAP.


It's what I feel I need to put my energy and effort into now. Each to his own. :)


Organic food is for rich people!


In part because crap food is heavily subsidized...

#30 Tim the Beek

  • VibeTribe
  • 13,277 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 09:15 PM

That list is encouraging, JP. :)

#31 TakeAStepBack

  • VibeTribe
  • 16,887 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 09:30 PM

i decided to leave P&R (and the board itself for the most part) because of this arrogant line of thinking you started to ram down our throats...funny how you've taken such a harsh tone over the past year mostly aimed at those in need...mayhaps, dave, you should get your nose out of all those economics brainwash bullshit books you've immersed yourself in whenever you did


Rammed down your throat? Because I wont lock step with you?


And as far as it goes, this is most certainly a fiscal and economic issue. Which is the part most people dont want to bother addressing. We just want to look at the feel good parts, the warm and fuzzy stuff and leave the consequences of the reality in the dust. That's what I see in play here. You want a world that does not exist to magically manifest itself so that your philosophy can match up. Sorry, that isn't how it works. Not in the least.

And I'll take a harsh tone as long as people cant come to the table with more than sarcastic jabs at how I see it, or outright nonsense like your above post, vic. I'm brain washed because I understand that economic freedom goes hand in hand with liberty? You seem to think we can have both, but also fix every problem in the world by handing it something that belongs to someone else through force.

If there is anyone here who needs to get off the brainwashing, it is people like you, vic.

And Im done. Apparently no one here seems to think this issue isn't rooted in economics and fiscal sanity. That money can just be transferred from nowhere to somewhere without any seen or unseen consequence and we all shit rainbows after that.

#32 TakeAStepBack

  • VibeTribe
  • 16,887 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 09:33 PM

Can't speak for EBT from experience, but regarding WIC I'm afraid you've got some conservative misinformation there. When I was right out of college, struggling to find a career while working 5 part-time jobs, we had an unplanned child. We utilized the Illinois WIC program, and I was DAMN thankful it was there. It ONLY allows healthy items - no junk food, soda, white bread (only whole grain breads and cereals) or sugary stuff (even sugared juices).

Here's a partial list of item-eligibility FAQs from Illinios:


It differs state to state. It is not one size fits all. Go look at all the states run downs and you will see that there is far more junk in the list than good food. This one is pretty decent as it goes.

#33 PeaceFrog

  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 26 June 2012 - 09:36 PM

the whole problem started way back when someone first said "this belongs to me"

what belongs to you, and why?

#34 PeaceFrog

  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 26 June 2012 - 09:39 PM

my philosophy is that we all belong to the earth.

I kinda thought I'd fit in here

kinda weird that I've become the pariah

#35 Tabbooma

  • VibeTribe
  • 22,002 posts

Posted 27 June 2012 - 12:30 AM

Spending a couple million on adds to let people who may be struggling and do not know they could receive some assistance is not a bad thing. ;)

#36 TakeAStepBack

  • VibeTribe
  • 16,887 posts

Posted 27 June 2012 - 12:39 AM

So struggling id so bad, they have time to sit in front of a TV and find out their is "free" shit to obtain? I must be the only one that can see irony in this. Ser. Watching TV ads while starving, get free money? I suppose.....

#37 Julius

  • VibeTribe
  • 8,575 posts

Posted 27 June 2012 - 12:42 AM

So struggling id so bad, they have time to sit in front of a TV and find out their is "free" shit to obtain? I must be the only one that can see irony in this. Ser. Watching TV ads while starving, get free money? I suppose.....


You're right. Much better to run a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal!

#38 TakeAStepBack

  • VibeTribe
  • 16,887 posts

Posted 27 June 2012 - 12:43 AM

Thankfully Julius sees what Im saying. Even if we're in complete disagreement.

#39 Tabbooma

  • VibeTribe
  • 22,002 posts

Posted 27 June 2012 - 01:03 AM

Shame on the elderly, poor and unemployed... They should get off their lazy asses and go get a job, after all the classifieds are loaded with job opportunties, they should be required to turn in their televisions to get some food assistance, maybe a quick jaunt down to the local food pantry to get some grub; after all the local pantries are overflowing with food, lets put the elderly on ice bergs and float em out to sea. Sink or swim grandma, sink or swim ;)

#40 TakeAStepBack

  • VibeTribe
  • 16,887 posts

Posted 27 June 2012 - 01:11 AM

Lets monetize debt and sel it to china or the very people that create our money instead. This is going to work out great. Then we can pay for these folks to watch info government mercials to get money from those stilll able. It should work out wonderful in th elong wrong.

#41 Tabbooma

  • VibeTribe
  • 22,002 posts

Posted 27 June 2012 - 01:25 AM

Infomercials helpd build America ;)

#42 gregoir

  • VibeTribe
  • 22,528 posts
  • LocationAbove The Waves

Posted 27 June 2012 - 01:39 AM

hmmmm if I wasn't lucky enough to currently live with my parents and work for my father I would probably be on government assistance. Yup just another freeloading scumbag.

#43 Eco

  • VibeTribe
  • 1,957 posts
  • LocationFoxboro MA

Posted 27 June 2012 - 02:30 AM

Organic food is for rich people!


I dunno, it doesn't take much time or money to start an organic garden.

#44 Eco

  • VibeTribe
  • 1,957 posts
  • LocationFoxboro MA

Posted 27 June 2012 - 02:33 AM

Shame on the elderly, poor and unemployed... They should get off their lazy asses and go get a job, after all the classifieds are loaded with job opportunties, they should be required to turn in their televisions to get some food assistance, maybe a quick jaunt down to the local food pantry to get some grub; after all the local pantries are overflowing with food, lets put the elderly on ice bergs and float em out to sea. Sink or swim grandma, sink or swim ;)


ROFLMAO!

Dead Kennedys - Kill the Poor Music Video



https://www.youtube....h?v=_ORKLaozFzo

#45 deadheadskier

  • VibeTribe
  • 10,590 posts

Posted 27 June 2012 - 05:01 AM

Why is 1 in 7 such a surprise? 15% of Americans live in poverty. Pretty much the same figure.

Humans aren't any different than any other animal. The more they struggle, the more desperate their behavior becomes. So, instead of allocating resources to put food on the table, we end up allocating more resources to protect your ass from desperate individuals mugging you and then paying their room and board at the local jail.

Where do you want your tax money going? Food or more cops and jails? You can't have your cake and eat it too with this issue TASB. I respect your desire to reduce government size and spending, but this is not where it can realistically be done without creating further social issues that may ultimately be even more costly.

#46 PeaceFrog

  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 27 June 2012 - 09:27 AM

Well, the second Amendment allows us to defend ourselves against bands of starving marauders.

I'm wondering whether it's the government's job to pick up dead bodies off your lawn, or is that service reserved for the private sector?

#47 TakeAStepBack

  • VibeTribe
  • 16,887 posts

Posted 27 June 2012 - 11:12 AM

Now we've moved over into scare tactics. :lmao:

So, since no one is actually paying for this program, being that the govt. is already deficit spending around 1.3 trillion a year, why not just offer this assistance to everyone and at least try to make it meet the general welfare clause instead of being in breach of it?

No one is paying for this. The govt. is so bold they want more people on the service. Enough so to run million dollar ads to get people onto the program. And yet still, only Julius finds any irony at all in that fact that the govt. is running infomercials, adding to the debt, to get people who are watching TV, to get assistance.

Noone but me and Julius finds anything remotely ironic about this? Unreal.

What's after the scare tactics?

#48 deadheadskier

  • VibeTribe
  • 10,590 posts

Posted 27 June 2012 - 11:38 AM

It's not scare tactics TASB; it's reality. I'm sure there are some not so very pleasant neighborhoods close to you where this reality manifests itself daily.

I know one thing is for darn sure. If the TV ads are what gets your panties in a bunch, I see far more ads for young people to join the military than offering them a free meal.

#49 Spidergawd

  • VibeTribe
  • 13,650 posts

Posted 27 June 2012 - 12:05 PM

Humans aren't any different than any other animal. The more they struggle, the more desperate their behavior becomes. So, instead of allocating resources to put food on the table, we end up allocating more resources to protect your ass from desperate individuals mugging you and then paying their room and board at the local jail.

Where do you want your tax money going? Food or more cops and jails? You can't have your cake and eat it too with this issue TASB. I respect your desire to reduce government size and spending, but this is not where it can realistically be done without creating further social issues that may ultimately be even more costly.


Blam!

#50 Spidergawd

  • VibeTribe
  • 13,650 posts

Posted 27 June 2012 - 12:19 PM

Now we've moved over into scare tactics. :lmao:


So it's not a scare tactic to go all chicken little on the deficit?? "If we spend anything on the poor, China will own us and it will spell the end of 'merica as we know it!" C'mon man, all sides are equally guilty of this. Therefore, it cancels out, IMO.

So, since no one is actually paying for this program, being that the govt. is already deficit spending around 1.3 trillion a year, why not just offer this assistance to everyone and at least try to make it meet the general welfare clause instead of being in breach of it?


1. You're not saying that food assistance causes us to spend trillions, right? Because from where I'm sitting, it looks like that's from billions upon billions being spent on the military-industrial complex, billions upon billions being spent for corporate tax breaks and subsidies, billions on foreign aid, billions on the private prison industry, billions on the futile "war on drugs", etc. Food aid is but a tiny drop in the bucket, and I'm totally in favor of it.
2. Now you're evoking the general welfare clause? The one I referenced earlier? Now that I find ironic, since your issue goes directly against it.

No one is paying for this. The govt. is so bold they want more people on the service. Enough so to run million dollar ads to get people onto the program. And yet still, only Julius finds any irony at all in that fact that the govt. is running infomercials, adding to the debt, to get people who are watching TV, to get assistance.

Noone but me and Julius finds anything remotely ironic about this? Unreal.


So are you saying that owning a television automatically makes you not poor? Maybe they'd like to bring more people in need into the program to lower the level of desperation and inform those in need about this option to help them? Maybe that could be viewed as an investment in the future? Would you prefer to just wait until they become so desperate that they do something for which we can lock them up? Is that going to be cheaper??

Just because some don't agree with what you're saying doesn't mean they don't understand. With due respect, I see that a lot these days. "You don't agree with me, so you must not understand."

I completely get where your coming from. Frankly, I think you're just misguided on this issue.