# Food Stamps



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

Cory Booker goes on food stamps - Salon.com

What would you buy if you had $30.00 for a week? Remember, you don't have anything on hand.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

So I just read the full article and Mr Booker is hugely mistaken. Food stamps (and welfare in general) were never meant to be a lifestyle, they were meant to carry people over a short term issue with the idea of getting off of them as quickly as possible and back to work.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> So I just read the full article and Mr Booker is hugely mistaken. Food stamps (and welfare in general) were never meant to be a lifestyle, they were meant to carry people over a short term issue with the idea of getting off of them as quickly as possible and back to work.


 Or in my case that I get 70 bucks it sure helps make things somewhat better. It is ONLY TO HELP, not to be the only means of buying food stuffs. Again just pointing out the true facts without such politicalizing it like some do.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

You should not be happy, fat, and satisfied when you depend on food stamps for food.
They should be used to keep you from starving to death at a bad time in your life.
They are not to feed a family for an extended time.
People should think before deciding to have a family. If they cannot afford to feed themselves they sure can't afford a family.


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

Food stamps are supplemental; therefore, the "S" in SNAP.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

vicki in NW OH said:


> Food stamps are supplemental; therefore, the "S" in SNAP.


Exactly! They were supposed to supplement the food budget, not make up the entire food budget. Somebody tell the mayor he's doing it wrong.


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

I think I'd probably buy some dried beans & instant potatoes, some milk & whatever fruit was cheapest. Salt for sure & probably eggs, flour & cheap margarine.

Sure they were intended to be supplemental but some have nothing else--however in my area anyone receiving them can get food bags every three months also. This contains canned tuna or chicken or pork, etc. , canned fruit, veggies, oatmeal, juice, etc. Very nice--about three grocery bags full. In my opinion, this is the better program as the real food goes to real people. I think it's less open to misuse than the gov. card as well as a help to the farmers & canneries. I guess the logistics of getting, transporting, etc. make it impractical plus the needy have to have a way to go get it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Rice ($10/10#), beans ($9/8#), taters ($8/15#)

That gives me $3 to buy spices this month and onions the next couple.

I'd be boring but I'd live.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Don't recipients receive the entire month's worth at once? So he could get $120 for the month? I think a person could eat pretty good on that amount, it should not be too much of a hardship if a person is frugal.


----------



## LWMSAVON (Oct 8, 2002)

pancho said:


> You should not be happy, fat, and satisfied when you depend on food stamps for food.
> They should be used to keep you from starving to death at a bad time in your life.
> They are not to feed a family for an extended time.*
> People should think before deciding to have a family. If they cannot afford to feed themselves they sure can't afford a family*.


People can have a family and be going along just fine with jobs, etc. and then WHAM something happens and one or both parents lose their job and it takes all their savings to stay a float for as long as they can. They were feeding their family just fine until the job loss(es) so they are eligible for help in such a case and they were affording their family fine until the job losses.

I hope you weren't referring to such a case but rather the career welfare recipients who keep having children to be able to stay in the system and get more money.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Hmmm. I am not a cook at all, so I would have my hands a bit more tied than some here. I would obviously have to learn (necessity is the mother of invention)! Eggs, milk, noodles, and butter to start with. Having done this in my youth, I can say spaghetti sauce, peanut butter, jelly, and raman noodles are staples. I would have to buy bread until I learned to bake it. Chicken stretches pretty far. In today's economy $30 will not get you much more than necessities.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Well, although the article and Booker try to take the blame for hungry kids off their parents, that's exactly where I put it.

When we were young and poor, I felt it was my responsibility to always make certain that DD had nutritious meals. She was always made to eat breakfast before leaving for school.....oatmeal isn't expensive. We may not have had _balanced_ meals every time, but we ate nutritious food----especially when we didn't have much food to eat.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

LWMSAVON said:


> People can have a family and be going along just fine with jobs, etc. and then WHAM something happens and one or both parents lose their job and it takes all their savings to stay a float for as long as they can. They were feeding their family just fine until the job loss(es) so they are eligible for help in such a case and they were affording their family fine until the job losses.
> 
> I hope you weren't referring to such a case but rather the career welfare recipients who keep having children to be able to stay in the system and get more money.


That is what food stamps are for.
Now if the family decides they would rather not work and just live on food stamps they are abusing the program.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wanda1950 said:


> Cory Booker goes on food stamps - Salon.com
> 
> What would you buy if you had $30.00 for a week? Remember, you don't have anything on hand.


A bus ticket to someplace where I could improve my lot in life.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

beccachow said:


> In today's economy $30 will not get you much more than necessities.


And why would anyone want to provide more than the necessities? :shrug:


----------



## Becka03 (Mar 29, 2009)

Ummmmmm google your states SNAP benefit calculator- I put in a family of 4 making 1500 a month- with rent at 700 , Childcare at 450, insurance at 50, and other utilities at 300- 
the amount of Food stamps- was 668 a month- that sure is ALOT of money- 

I make way more than 1500 a month- and have a bigger mortgage and our food budget is 200 a month- for 4 of us- 
I would be able to eat just fine for myself for 30 bucks a week


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

My current budget for food is $30 a week. I do just fine and rarely go over that amount.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

I spend between $100-150 a month on groceries which includes household cleaning products, laundry detergent and such. And I eat very well. I can't break it down by the week as some items I only buy three or four times a year -- like NIDO dried milk, which lasts me about three months -- and legumes and grains all purchased in bulk. I make my own bread -- less than $1.00 a loaf. I eat meat almost every day --venison, wild hog (total processing fees of $175.00 a year), chicken and pork on sale, steak for special occasions (also on sale) and sometimes bacon. Vegetables, fruit, eggs and cheese make up most of the rest. I drink coffee every morning and even buy a gallon jug of wine a month on that budget. I think I'm going to figure up what food costs really are for me in the next few days as I doubt it ends up more than $120.00 a month overall.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

I'd love to see your breakdown of the 200 per month for 4 folks. That is some serious budgeting right there. We have six, but even when we had four, it was never that low.

Care to share your secrets?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Ok, I gotta fess up here... today I spent $60 bucks.... wont last a week but I really do like to fix my Yvonne something nice once in a while.... 
bag of frozen Scallops... 10 bucks
bag of frozen Shrimp... (those nice big ones) 15 bucks
bag of frozen Shrimp... (the medium sized ones) 10 bucks
assorted flavors of smoked cheeses 20 bucks
Portabella caps and box of oatmeal 5 bucks

I like to saute the scallops in butter with some herbs, then scatter a few of them around on an inverted bella, top that with a few shrimp, pour the butter and herb mixture over the whole thing and cover with grated smoked gouda, pop in the oven for till everything is bubbling nice. Serve with a side of fresh steamed asparagus and melted butter, and a hunk of "luvrules" yummy artisan breads. 

Yvonne smiles a LOT when I fix this supper for her.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

joseph97297 said:


> I'd love to see your breakdown of the 200 per month for 4 folks. That is some serious budgeting right there. We have six, but even when we had four, it was never that low.
> 
> Care to share your secrets?


Buy loss leaders on sale, go for high nutrition, low processed foods. Basic staples... rice, beans, flour, milk eggs etc. Some of us cheat and raise a lot of our own food, pick up road kill for free! Theres lots of ways to stretch a dollar if needed. I have noticed people spend less dollars on food than they do if shopping with food stamps.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

It is a publicity stunt. When the week is done he can say I have lived on it all the while he got lunch and dinner payed for by somebody else.


----------



## Becka03 (Mar 29, 2009)

joseph97297 said:


> I'd love to see your breakdown of the 200 per month for 4 folks. That is some serious budgeting right there. We have six, but even when we had four, it was never that low.
> 
> Care to share your secrets?



My siggie line I have a blog- grant it- it isn't kept up to date much- but I have some ideas on there- 
Also- 
we have non-meat meals at least 3 times a week..
we bust our butts gardening at home and a work share all spring and summer and can everything we get our hands on
I shop early in the morning and in the evening when things are clearanced- like the bagels and meats-
I cook just about everything from scratch- cakes, brownies, soup 
I make breakfast at home and coffee (for the grown ups) to take with with us - along with packing all 4 of our lunches- lunches at school for the 2 kids is 82 bucks a month- I can make PB and J~ and homemade jello cups and whatever veggie I have and shop aldis- for crackers to put in their lunches too- me and DH take the leftovers from whatever dinner we had... 
I shop once a month in the next town over- at Aldi's and the Amish shop...
we also have a Sam's club account- where I can get bulk juice boxes for lunches- and flour sugar ect...
if it isn't a good deal or on sale- we don't eat it- 
for dinner tonight- I made Broccoli soup- creamed- 
My son had signed up to take a veggie tray to school for a party in Latin class-so I had gone to sam's club to see the price of mixed trays- it was 10 bucks- too much in my mind- I found a 3 lb bag of mixed veggies for 4.97 (broccoli, cauliflower and carrots) and bought 3 English cukes- for 2.59... he has only 15 kids in the class- I broke the bag down and used my Tupperware veggie tray to put the 4 veggies in and in the middle put a salad dressing poured into a little container for dipping...
well that only used a little more than half the bag- 
I pulled all the broccoli out- 

So - for dinner- I sauteed onions (from the garden stored in panty hose in the garage) and celery in bacon grease- about a tablespoon of it( i keep and strain all my bacon grease to cook eggs in and sauteing things in then added 4 cups of giblet stock I had made and froze from Thanksgiving... in another container I whisk 1 C of water with powdered milk, seasonings and some cornstarch for dipping.. put that in the pot- added the broccoli- then used a handblender to make it smooth once it had cooked and thickened up-
I had pulled a loaf of frozen discounted bread outta the freezer and sliced it up to go with it- and I have leftovers for my lunch tomorrow

I grew up poor- I can cook something from nothing- poor meaning we didn't have enough money (35 cents) once a week for ice cream at school-
my kids know eating out is a total treat- something we do for bdays and they usually pick somewhere like Chickfila LOL


----------



## Becka03 (Mar 29, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Buy loss leaders on sale, go for high nutrition, low processed foods. Basic staples... rice, beans, flour, milk eggs etc. Some of us cheat and raise a lot of our own food, pick up road kill for free! Theres lots of ways to stretch a dollar if needed. I have noticed people spend less dollars on food than they do if shopping with food stamps.



Exactly! I barter too- I barter canned goods I have canned for venison and eggs

and I have been known to stop at houses that look like they have fruit trees that they aren't using the trees to ask if they mind if I pick it- they almost always say yes! 
I canned 24 halfpints of pear jam this summer that way!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

joseph97297 said:


> I'd love to see your breakdown of the 200 per month for 4 folks. That is some serious budgeting right there. We have six, but even when we had four, it was never that low.
> 
> Care to share your secrets?


I do it on $250 with everything store bought. As has been said lots of rice, taters and beans. We almost never get a 'whole' piece of meat on a plate, its sliced, diced or otherwise broken up and tossed in the pot. One pork chop cut up in a bowl of rice will do as a main dish for 3 instead of using 1 one each.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

All day at work I listened to a new contest on the radio to nominate a needy family for a holiday gift package. The needy family that wins will receive an I Pad, Kindle PW, I Pod, Kindle Fire and a bunch of other stuff...etc. etc. 

Why would an impoverished family need all these fancy high tech gadgets, and who is going to pay for them later on to keep them updated and running?

Priorites in this country are screwed.

ETA: And as usual, I agree with Pancho. Stop having kids, grrr.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Can people really live for years on food stamps with no cut off point?


----------



## Becka03 (Mar 29, 2009)

watcher said:


> I do it on $250 with everything store bought. As has been said lots of rice, taters and beans. We almost never get a 'whole' piece of meat on a plate, its sliced, diced or otherwise broken up and tossed in the pot. One pork chop cut up in a bowl of rice will do as a main dish for 3 instead of using 1 one each.


I can make a delish stirfry with leftovers for lunch outta 2 chicken breasts all the veggies in the fridge that need used and rice- for the 4 of us- and some times- instead rice - I use spaghetti noodles- and put soy sauce on them and sesame seeds- 'sesame noodles' the kids love'em

their fave meal is Ham pot pie- I can use leftover ham- or a ham hock- make a large soup- and make homemade noodles outta eggs,flour,water and baking soda- they love it!


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

DAVID In Wisconsin said:


> My current budget for food is $30 a week. I do just fine and rarely go over that amount.


$30.00/wk. would easily keep my crock pot full for the week with hearty soups/meals.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Haven said:


> Can people really live for years on food stamps with no cut off point?


Yep, to the best of my knowledge, which comes mostly from acquaintances here in a somewhat impoverished area, the only real limits on the freebies is what was once known as afdc... new name now, but basically the same program. Seems as though there is a five year max on that one, but housing assistance... getting your rent paid, medical care, heating assistance, getting your utilities paid, food stamps, and all the other goodies just run on forever. The afdc thing was revamped under Reagan I think, eliminating the lifetime welfare checks, now those recipients have up to five years in which to gain enough weight, become drug and alcohol dependent, develop some other work threatening malady and be placed on SSI disability. (not to be confused with the original SS disability for which one must have worked and paid in to collect)


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Booker is just another dim looking to run for higher office by playing to the stupidity of the average voter......and they lap it up....In NJ a single person gets more than 120mth...


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

What you get depends on the state you live in & your particular circumstances. Mama got around $60 dollars a month in Tn. She had an income of about $650 per month. 

If a person could manage to; beginning some kind of stockpile would mount up to a great savings & allow much more selection. I think I'd work on getting even a few pounds of beans ahead & keep going from there. It is somewhat true that it takes money to save money. If you can only get enough to go from money to money, it's very hard to get ahead.

Thankfully, I am now able to afford enough on sales to last until the next rock bottom sale & it makes a lot of difference in what I spend. For instance, I am now always (hope it lasts) able to go through the discount meats & purchase as much as we will use--got six pounds of ground round as well as 3 nice T-bones last week. We'd never be able to do that if we didn't have all our staples on hand as well as our canned & frozen goods. 

Mama, on the other hand, was never able to stock up enough for real savings, especially when she could no longer do elaborate cooking. Having the food stamps added enough that she could afford the microwave foods that she could fix for herself.


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, to the best of my knowledge, which comes mostly from acquaintances here in a somewhat impoverished area, the only real limits on the freebies is what was once known as afdc... new name now, but basically the same program. Seems as though there is a five year max on that one, but housing assistance... getting your rent paid, medical care, heating assistance, getting your utilities paid, food stamps, and all the other goodies just run on forever. The afdc thing was revamped under Reagan I think, eliminating the lifetime welfare checks, now those recipients have up to five years in which to gain enough weight, become drug and alcohol dependent, develop some other work threatening malady and be placed on SSI disability. (not to be confused with the original SS disability for which one must have worked and paid in to collect)


There might have been some changes under Reagan but the only major overhaul happened under Clinton. I was very much in favor of it & think there is still a lot of room for improvement without denying anyone substance for livlihood.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wanda1950 said:


> There might have been some changes under Reagan but the only major overhaul happened under Clinton. I was very much in favor of it & think there is still a lot of room for improvement without denying anyone substance for livlihood.


I stand corrected... it was under the Clinton administration that the welfare reform act was passed. Didnt really change things though... moving the crowd from one program into another still costs the taxpayers.... and sadly enough it costs the working stiff... since they were moved into the Social Security side. Alas.... what are we to do? I have some of my own ideas... but they dont seem to sit well with some of our audience here.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Haven said:


> Can people really live for years on food stamps with no cut off point?


I have an aunt that has been on food stamps for 30 years and on commodities for 20 years before food stamps came in to be what she had.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Well lets see get $30 Food Stamps,go by Local Food Pantry,Local Free Store and some Pan Handling and find an Empty House to sleep in.

Hey doing ok!

big rockpile


----------



## beaglebiz (Aug 5, 2008)

joseph97297 said:


> I'd love to see your breakdown of the 200 per month for 4 folks. That is some serious budgeting right there. We have six, but even when we had four, it was never that low.
> 
> Care to share your secrets?



I have 5 in my family, but keep in mind 4 are over six feet tall and male (my youngest is 13). I dont spend near 200 per month, but sometimes I find a great deal and stock up. I think thats the secret. I buy only loss leaders, have a huge pantry and full freezer (plus putting up your own produce helps, although this years garden didnt do well at all)(also, important to note, I was not food secure as a child). 
I already have 40 lbs of cheese put away for next year when the prices go up.
just buy as much as you can of what you use if you can get a great price.

editing to add...dont buy junk food. My boys fry up a couple eggs, or make a tortilla pizza if they have a snack attack (which happens often).


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

LWMSAVON said:


> People can have a family and be going along just fine with jobs, etc. and then WHAM something happens and one or both parents lose their job and it takes all their savings to stay a float for as long as they can. They were feeding their family just fine until the job loss(es) so they are eligible for help in such a case and they were affording their family fine until the job losses.
> 
> I hope you weren't referring to such a case but rather the career welfare recipients who keep having children to be able to stay in the system and get more money.


Very true. It is easy to see a family in need and say, âWell, they shouldnât have had children.â But children are a huge commitment and sometimes, thing happen, through no fault of your own.
It is like the current mortgage crisis. It is easy to blow it off as âThose folks bought homes they couldnât afford, so itâs their own fault.â But if someone bought a $50,000 home, used their life savings for down payment and initial repairs, then 5 years later, lost their job. Then the banks refused to cut them a new mortgage and values of homes dropped below what they still owed. What are they to do?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

If you are interested in the folks that live off the government take a look at this. 
http://spotcrime.com/mi/detroit
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Detroit-Michigan.html
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-kVPfBDp_s[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbLBkThLOnM[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRpG9CjjhWI[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkFPN5zUw3I[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dBbZFXr05U[/ame]


----------



## beaglebiz (Aug 5, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Very true. It is easy to see a family in need and say, &#8220;Well, they shouldn&#8217;t have had children.&#8221; But children are a huge commitment and sometimes, thing happen, through no fault of your own.
> It is like the current mortgage crisis. It is easy to blow it off as &#8220;Those folks bought homes they couldn&#8217;t afford, so it&#8217;s their own fault.&#8221; But if someone bought a $50,000 home, used their life savings for down payment and initial repairs, then 5 years later, lost their job. Then the banks refused to cut them a new mortgage and values of homes dropped below what they still owed. What are they to do?


All of this is true. What grinds my gears is the folks that wont take a job "below" them to support their family. My DH has been laid off for quite a while, and right now is working as a deer butcher. Other jobs he has held since he last worked at his profession are handyman, wheel chair and stair glide repair(he likes doing this, I wish the company he worked for could hire him full time). At one point, I remember my dad collecting cans to pay his rent because he was unemployed. there are things you can do if you are able. I have no problem with disabled and elderly folks getting assistance, or even those who need a hand up. Its the whole welfare as a lifestyle that bugs me.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

beaglebiz said:


> All of this is true. What grinds my gears is the folks that wont take a job "below" them to support their family. My DH has been laid off for quite a while, and right now is working as a deer butcher. Other jobs he has held since he last worked at his profession are handyman, wheel chair and stair glide repair(he likes doing this, I wish the company he worked for could hire him full time). At one point, I remember my dad collecting cans to pay his rent because he was unemployed. there are things you can do if you are able. I have no problem with disabled and elderly folks getting assistance, or even those who need a hand up. Its the whole welfare as a lifestyle that bugs me.


âbelowâ them is a slippery term. Iâve seen single moms offered part time minimum wage jobs that would require day care and reliable transportation. The house wouldnât be suitable for day care and her house payments are less than rent. Owes more than its worth, canât sell, so stuck in the country.

Its easy to imagine a carpenter turning down a $15. an hour job, 60 hours a week because heâs waiting for a $20 an hour job like he had in 2007. But there are jobs out there that pay $2.00 an hour plus tips, 6am to 9am and then 11am to 1pm, Monday, Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday. In the winter, tips often donât get you to minimum wage. In this area of seasonal workers, it isnât uncommon to work minimum wage as a carpenter, but they only need you September and October.

Because of the shortage of jobs some employers feel free to pay unskilled wages for skilled jobs. Yea, yea, just be glad to have a job. Then when the worker buys a modest car, to make sure he gets to work on time, you disparage him when his employer doesnât need him and he canât pay for his car. Darn minimum wage electrician buying a $3000 car he canât afford to buy.
Just pointing out there are two, perhaps many, sides to this problem.


----------



## beaglebiz (Aug 5, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Its easy to imagine a carpenter turning down a $15. an hour job, 60 hours a week because he&#8217;s waiting for a $20 an hour job like he had in 2007. But there are jobs out there that pay $2.00 an hour plus tips, 6am to 9am and then 11am to 1pm, Monday, Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday. In the winter, tips often don&#8217;t get you to minimum wage.


your employer has to make up the difference to minimum wage for wait staff making 2.01 per hour. I worked many years waitressing. Best money I ever made to be truthful.
I was once a single mom. I worked up to three jobs at a time to support my son because it was my job to support him. Besides, I have no problem with those needing a hand, its the years of not working when you are able (again, not seniors or disabled) that bugs me.


----------



## trulytricia (Oct 11, 2002)

So your question was thirty dollars for just one person for one week

I could do this with the only stress being no coffee. I'd buy garlic, eggs, corn tortillas, canned refried beans, tea and stevia, some dark leaf lettuce, salt, mayo and tuna. Something orange like carrots or sweet potatoes.


Now if you said this is my last trip to store as the shtf and any more shopping trips is unknown. My list would be dry beans [including something to sprout] garlic, salt, oil.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Haven said:


> Can people really live for years on food stamps with no cut off point?


Absolutely. As long as they can prove need, and breathe.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Nice thread.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Yeah... And it's been dead for nearly 4 years. :/


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

There's no such thing as a dead thread. 
That's how I found this site ,it was a Google search and it sent me to a long dead thread.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

There seems to be an invasion of Zombie threads lately


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya that is for sure. I think at some point in time OLD real OLD Ones should be gotten rid of, cause some just post and don't pay attention to what the date it was posted or with the last poster and that makes it a long time ago.
Oh what happened Well 10 years a LOT can happen even the poster not even here any longer. Dead is dead till Zombies are brought back for some unknown reason.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wow AK you sound like a teenager. 
Some threads just recently written have no value. All other threads from years ago or just as valuable as the first day. 

Let's face it some topics are always popular and timeless dealing with trespassers the neighbors dog etc.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Nice thread.
Nice meaning...people discussing a subject in a nice manner.
No name calling.
Quite civil.
What a concept.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Nice thread.
> Nice meaning...people discussing a subject in a nice manner.
> No name calling.
> Quite civil.
> What a concept.


There are many thousands of threads that fit that description


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

wanda1950 said:


> Cory Booker goes on food stamps - Salon.com
> 
> What would you buy if you had $30.00 for a week? Remember, you don't have anything on hand.


7 two liter cokes and spend the rest on potatoes onions and beans probably.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are many thousands of threads that fit that description


Long ago.
Pull up the last...most recent food stamps thread.
An eye opener.:catfight:


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Declan said:


> 7 two liter cokes and spend the rest on potatoes onions and beans probably.



Good lord!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Declan said:


> 7 two liter cokes and spend the rest on potatoes onions and beans probably.


Why not throw that in a blender while we're at it? LOL:yuck:


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> Why not throw that in a blender while we're at it? LOL:yuck:


Great idea.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> There's no such thing as a dead thread.
> That's how I found this site ,it was a Google search and it sent me to a long dead thread.


That's how I found this place too. I did a search on rotational grazing .


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

This thread was before I joined but I think I'm going to go back and do some reading. It was a respectful discussion and I hate to say it but what happened?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

TripleD said:


> That's how I found this place too. I did a search on rotational grazing .


Interestingly, I think I have a thread on that?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

beaglebiz said:


> your employer has to make up the difference to minimum wage for wait staff making 2.01 per hour. I worked many years waitressing. Best money I ever made to be truthful.
> I was once a single mom. I worked up to three jobs at a time to support my son because it was my job to support him. Besides, I have no problem with those needing a hand, its the years of not working when you are able (again, not seniors or disabled) that bugs me.


I understand what an employer is required to do, but in my limited knowledge of such personal matters, there are plenty of places not following the law.
I had breakfast nearly every day at a place that doesn't pay their wait staff anything. I know what the law says. But these people work for tips, period. In the summer they can earn $100 in a day. In the winter, $5 for 8 hours. Don't like it quit. So they hold on to the job through the winter in hopes of a good summer. 

As I said before, there are hundreds of different situations.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

I just looked it up. A family of 8 in Texas (mom and 7 kids, dad's in prison) get $1,169 per month. that's insane. This woman has never worked and she has a baby just as quick as she can. She'd have more but she miscarried the last one and then her husband went to prison. That's just food money. She also has a cell phone and of course free health care (who else is going to pay the hospital for all those deliveries). I may seem harsh but I would not give her one thin dime. I'd feed the kids 2 meals a day at school and send home a sake sandwich for evening and be done with them. I bet then she'd stop getting pregnant and maybe just maybe get a job. If nothing else she could baby sit. She has plenty of experience at that!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Miss Kay said:


> I just looked it up. A family of 8 in Texas (mom and 7 kids, dad's in prison) get $1,169 per month. that's insane. This woman has never worked and she has a baby just as quick as she can. She'd have more but she miscarried the last one and then her husband went to prison. That's just food money. She also has a cell phone and of course free health care (who else is going to pay the hospital for all those deliveries). I may seem harsh but I would not give her one thin dime. I'd feed the kids 2 meals a day at school and send home a sake sandwich for evening and be done with them. I bet then she'd stop getting pregnant and maybe just maybe get a job. If nothing else she could baby sit. She has plenty of experience at that!


And clearly, from this example, we now know that everyone on FS is extorting the government welfare system, popping out babies for no reason, and living the high life. That's not the Small Sample Size logical fallacy at all, is it?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> And clearly, from this example, we now know that everyone on FS is extorting the government welfare system, popping out babies for no reason, and living the high life. That's not the Small Sample Size logical fallacy at all, is it?


 I have seen numerous similar examples as I am sure others have as well. The sample size is not even close to being small. 

My point is that there absolutely should be no government welfare system for people to extort.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> I have seen numerous similar examples as I am sure others have as well. The sample size is not even close to being small.
> 
> My point is that there absolutely should be no government welfare system for people to extort.


 That is for sure, and it goes all the way down to their High School Days. I know of several cases that these girls get pregnant so they can get all this free money and it is going through the schools like wildfire. Just keep popping out kids, the government will provide. This is just wrong on all accounts.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> And clearly, from this example, we now know that everyone on FS is extorting the government welfare system, popping out babies for no reason, and living the high life. That's not the Small Sample Size logical fallacy at all, is it?


Of course not. We learn that this might be an isolated case, or it might be the tip of the iceberg, and a lot more "due diligence" investigation into fraud and abuse would be in order. This isn't chump change, it's one of the biggest chunks of pie on the budget chart. And even more important, it's people's lives being screwed up. I don't want to pay to make people dependent, hopeless, trapped in the system but that is apparently what happens to a lot of them.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

It's not fraud or abuse, it's all legal. My sample size of one is plenty for me to see this is insane. One family is one too many in my book.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

In addition to food stamps (in Michigan it is a Bridge Card) to buy food, if you are low income, school children get free breakfast and free lunch. Second Harvest provides free food. In Detroit Salvation Army's bed and bread program provides 5000 meals and a place to sleep for 500, every day. Detroit, faced with unpaid water bills are now "forgiving up to a year's worth of water bill, if you can make a good faith effort of $50 towards the outstanding amount. 
Low income housing assistance, the tenant pays $50 and the Feds pay the remaining $700 a month. 
A neighbor left his wife and three children. Wife went to Social Services and told her sad story. They put $1000 into repairs to her car, fixed the mobile home's furnace, caught up the electric bill, filled the propane tank, helped get her enrolled in the local University with a PEL grant, paid for a babysitter while she was in classes and when she was waiting tables at the Country Club. Welfare paid her house payment, too.

Husband came back, tried to patch up the marriage, but she figured the government was a better husband than he'd ever been, told him to leave and never come back.

She put the children on the bus at 7:30 am, school fed them breakfast and lunch. They went to the sitter after school for supper and she put them to bed at night, Monday through Friday. Dad had the children on the weekends. During the summer, they rotated between relatives. 

Plus the Food Pantry, Second Harvest and a couple other free food places, food isn't an issue.

Back when I was working night shift at a prison, as I was leaving the house one warm summer night, about 9PM, one of the non-working neighbors was cooking on his grill. He yelled over to me, offering me a beer and a steak. I declined as I had to work. He yelled back, " Work? Only fools work!"
That stuck with me over the years. I think he might have offered up a great truth.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Nice thread.
> Nice meaning...people discussing a subject in a nice manner.
> No name calling.
> Quite civil.
> What a concept.


It was nice until you showed up you %@##^%$#. Now its no longer nice.

Sorry, that was just too easy plus I'm running on 4 hrs of sleep in the last 40 hrs.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Declan said:


> 7 two liter cokes and spend the rest on potatoes onions and beans probably.


I hope at the very least you wouldn't be working in an office with a diet like that.

One of the reasons I like my 'paying job', as I call it, is I work all alone in a building. Plus if things get too bad and my eyes start watering there's lots of windows I can open for fresh air.

Wait. . .was that a not nice post? Have I ruined the thread?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I understand what an employer is required to do, but in my limited knowledge of such personal matters, there are plenty of places not following the law.
> I had breakfast nearly every day at a place that doesn't pay their wait staff anything. I know what the law says. But these people work for tips, period. In the summer they can earn $100 in a day. In the winter, $5 for 8 hours. Don't like it quit. So they hold on to the job through the winter in hopes of a good summer.
> 
> As I said before, there are hundreds of different situations.


There used to be a lot of jobs where people worked for tips only. Most, if not all, of them have gone away thanks to lawyers. 

There was a grocery store where the baggers who bagged, carried and put the groceries in your car worked for tips only. Then the store's lawyer told the owner he as setting himself up for not only a major law if a bagger was hurt but having the government crawling up his rear on taxes, worker's comp, etc. So he ended the tips only, hired people to be stockers/baggers and put in a strict NO TIPPING policy. A lot of the old baggers quit because they were making less than 1/4 of what they were when it was tips only.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> And clearly, from this example, we now know that everyone on FS is extorting the government welfare system, popping out babies for no reason, and living the high life. That's not the Small Sample Size logical fallacy at all, is it?


I don't know about living the high life but if you can befriend some people who live in "the projects" you will be surprised how much money can be made scamming the system. And if you have the urge you can work off the books for even more money.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Miss Kay said:


> I just looked it up. A family of 8 in Texas (mom and 7 kids, dad's in prison) get $1,169 per month. that's insane. This woman has never worked and she has a baby just as quick as she can. She'd have more but she miscarried the last one and then her husband went to prison. That's just food money. She also has a cell phone and of course free health care (who else is going to pay the hospital for all those deliveries). I may seem harsh but I would not give her one thin dime. I'd feed the kids 2 meals a day at school and send home a sake sandwich for evening and be done with them. I bet then she'd stop getting pregnant and maybe just maybe get a job. If nothing else she could baby sit. She has plenty of experience at that!



Wow you must really hate them kids.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Miss Kay said:


> It's not fraud or abuse, it's all legal. My sample size of one is plenty for me to see this is insane. One family is one too many in my book.


Whatever.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Whatever.


You left out the eye roll........


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

Welcome to government assisted generational poverty. In my neighborhood, you can 'make' about 36k a year getting welfare, section 8, etc. why would you want to work for a living when you can make that much just for sitting on your rump and watching the (government provided) TV. Until the progressive party stops trying to 'help' these folks in return for their votes, it will continue.

Loki


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

hoddedloki said:


> Welcome to government assisted generational poverty. In my neighborhood, you can 'make' about 36k a year getting welfare, section 8, etc. why would you want to work for a living when you can make that much just for sitting on your rump and watching the (government provided) TV. Until the progressive party stops trying to 'help' these folks in return for their votes, it will continue.
> 
> Loki


One of the saddest things I have ever read in a newspaper was on this subject. A few decades ago major newspaper was doing a series of reports on the poor and welfare in our state. They went to a small town not to far from where I lived which was said to have one of the highest percentage of people on "government assistance". They asked a little boy, looked about 6 or so from the pic, what he wanted to do when he grew up. He said he want to grow up and get his money out of the mailbox like mommy and grandma.

To give you some idea of how long ago this was, food stamps were still actual pieces of paper and IIRC you even got food 'coins' back in change. The 'coins' didn't last long, grocers hated them because there was no place in the till for them. Anyone else remember those?


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

watcher said:


> I hope at the very least you wouldn't be working in an office with a diet like that.
> 
> One of the reasons I like my 'paying job', as I call it, is I work all alone in a building. Plus if things get too bad and my eyes start watering there's lots of windows I can open for fresh air.
> 
> Wait. . .was that a not nice post? Have I ruined the thread?


I assume if I were surviving on $30 a week for food, I wouldn't be working anywhere. As is, my paycheck works out to a little better than $55/hour so I'm good on staples other than just beans and potatoes.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

no really said:


> This thread was before I joined but I think I'm going to go back and do some reading. It was a respectful discussion and I hate to say it but what happened?


Ding..ding..ding.
Yes..go way back and read.
Then you will see a change in the tone of the threads.
I think you'll spot the line.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

watcher said:


> It was nice until you showed up you %@##^%$#. Now its no longer nice.
> 
> Sorry, that was just too easy plus I'm running on 4 hrs of sleep in the last 40 hrs.


Nothing but neighborly help and friendly advice here.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> *Long ago.*
> Pull up the last...most recent food stamps thread.
> An eye opener.:catfight:


Not just long ago, and not just about food stamps.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

"Wow you must really hate them kids. "

Actually I love those kids. I'm the one that bought their computers that they leave at school so they won't get broken, stolen, or sold. I buy their school clothes because I want better for them and I recognize their potential. I'm the one that tries to show them what the rest of the world looks like outside their trailer park full of families just like theirs. I suspect some will go on to great things while others will join the cartel and make babies with women who live off the system. I can't change the world but I hope to change it for a few kids anyway.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Miss Kay said:


> "Wow you must really hate them kids. "
> 
> Actually I love those kids. I'm the one that bought their computers that they leave at school so they won't get broken, stolen, or sold. I buy their school clothes because I want better for them and I recognize their potential. I'm the one that tries to show them what the rest of the world looks like outside their trailer park full of families just like theirs. I suspect some will go on to great things while others will join the cartel and make babies with women who live off the system. I can't change the world but I hope to change it for a few kids anyway.



Thank you Miss Kay!!! They will remember and hopefully continue to share the way you have taught them.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Miss Kay said:


> "Wow you must really hate them kids. "
> 
> Actually I love those kids. I'm the one that bought their computers that they leave at school so they won't get broken, stolen, or sold. I buy their school clothes because I want better for them and I recognize their potential. I'm the one that tries to show them what the rest of the world looks like outside their trailer park full of families just like theirs. I suspect some will go on to great things while others will join the cartel and make babies with women who live off the system. I can't change the world but I hope to change it for a few kids anyway.


You go girl!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Miss Kay said:


> "Wow you must really hate them kids. "
> 
> Actually I love those kids. I'm the one that bought their computers that they leave at school so they won't get broken, stolen, or sold. I buy their school clothes because I want better for them and I recognize their potential. I'm the one that tries to show them what the rest of the world looks like outside their trailer park full of families just like theirs. I suspect some will go on to great things while others will join the cartel and make babies with women who live off the system. I can't change the world but I hope to change it for a few kids anyway.


 That's very different than what you said that I quoted. 




Miss Kay said:


> I would not give her one thin dime. I'd feed the kids 2 meals a day at school and send home a sake sandwich for evening and be done with them. I bet then she'd stop getting pregnant and maybe just maybe get a job. If nothing else she could baby sit. She has plenty of experience at that!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> That's very different than what you said that I quoted.


That's what happens when we assume. There has always been a difference in a hand out and a hand up. 

Always will be too.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Back when I was 19 or 20 I had a friend that kept running out of gas. Usually at 2 in the morning on a Saturday. I kept bringing him gas and he kept calling me to help him. The last time he called I took my gas can and poured all my gas into my truck and brought him an empty can. It was a 5 mile walk to the 24 hour store. I took him to the store and let him walk back. Told him the next time he would walk both ways. 

That was thirty years ago and he hasn't run out of gas since then. I know because we are still close. We laugh about it even.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

I don't give that woman money. I offered to let her clean my house for money and she refused. When the kids call to ask if they can do work on our farm for money to buy clothes etc. I don't give it to them because I know she will take it. I take the kids and buy their clothes etc. and then take the tags off. I do not want these kids growing up to be like their parents. They have huge potential, several of them are in the gifted classes. What a waste it would be for the girls to start young having babies on the government toll but if you don't know better, you do as you see. When you pay women to have babies, they have babies. These kids never even thought of college until they started staying at our farm having sleep overs with their friends and we'd ask them what they wanted to do when they grow up. That was 7 years ago. You ask them today and they can tell you which college they are going to, what their degree will be, and the classes they are taking now to prepare. I am all for government aid to see them get an education. I am not for government aid to keep their mom, or any mom like her having kids she cannot raise. I guess you and I just see the world though completely different glasses.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Miss Kay said:


> I don't give that woman money. I offered to let her clean my house for money and she refused. When the kids call to ask if they can do work on our farm for money to buy clothes etc. I don't give it to them because I know she will take it. I take the kids and buy their clothes etc. and then take the tags off. I do not want these kids growing up to be like their parents. They have huge potential, several of them are in the gifted classes. What a waste it would be for the girls to start young having babies on the government toll but if you don't know better, you do as you see. When you pay women to have babies, they have babies. These kids never even thought of college until they started staying at our farm having sleep overs with their friends and we'd ask them what they wanted to do when they grow up. That was 7 years ago. You ask them today and they can tell you which college they are going to, what their degree will be, and the classes they are taking now to prepare. I am all for government aid to see them get an education. I am not for government aid to keep their mom, or any mom like her having kids she cannot raise. I guess you and I just see the world though completely different glasses.



It is Economics 101, you get more of that which you subsidize and less of that which you tax. 

In this country we subsidize joblessness and tax productivity. No wonder we are so messed up.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> That's what happens when we assume. There has always been a difference in a hand out and a hand up.
> 
> 
> 
> Always will be too.



What assume ?
She said two exactly different things. 
I wanted to know which one she ment.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> What assume ?
> She said two exactly different things.
> I wanted to know which one she ment.


No she didn't, and she went on to explain what she meant.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> Back when I was 19 or 20 I had a friend that kept running out of gas. Usually at 2 in the morning on a Saturday. I kept bringing him gas and he kept calling me to help him. The last time he called I took my gas can and poured all my gas into my truck and brought him an empty can. It was a 5 mile walk to the 24 hour store. I took him to the store and let him walk back. Told him the next time he would walk both ways.
> 
> That was thirty years ago and he hasn't run out of gas since then. I know because we are still close. We laugh about it even.


A wise friend once told me, "You get just what you tolerate." If you would have tolerated that, you'd still be hauling gas in the middle of the night.


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

Farmerga said:


> *It is Economics 101, you get more of that which you subsidize and less of that which you tax. *
> 
> In this country we subsidize joblessness and tax productivity. No wonder we are so messed up.


I haven't read those words in decades. This country is turning into one of the largest case studies in history.

In 2012, 21.3% of the population was on means-tested public assistance according to the census data. I found estimates as high as 30.4% for 2015. Of those on assistance 20% have been on it 5 years or longer.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Wow you must really hate them kids.


This is the argument used by the left political side almost every single time the subject of welfare comes up. 

If you say its wrong for able bodied people to spend an entire lifetime and never work, you hate kids. 

If you say its wrong for someone to start having babies at 15 so they can get money, you hate kids. 

If you say it is wrong to tax struggling working families to give it to those who refuse to work, you hate kids. 

It is a horrible argument and shows the lack of justification that exists to support the cause. Trillions of dollars have been spent on wealth refistribution. Trillions. I would ask anyone who supports wealth redistribution to compare poverty rates of the 1960s to today, then come explain how it is working.


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

Rice,

The problem is that the wealth redistribution system is working exactly as intended. It was never intended to actually fix the problems of poverty. The point was to create employment for those doing the distributing, and to create dependency in those receiving support/money, both of which create a ready made political constituency. Oddly enough, the Democratic party constituency and power has increased in a manner that is an almost straight line correlation with the increase in the welfare state.

Loki


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

hoddedloki said:


> Oddly enough, the Democratic party constituency and power has increased in a manner that is an almost straight line correlation with the increase in the welfare state.
> 
> Loki


That is likely due to Jim Crow laws being struck down at the same time that welfare was being created. More likely a temporal correlation than a cause and effect.


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

Declan,

You have a point that the Jim Crow laws being struck down is seen as a Democratic action, despite the Democrats being the ones enforcing the Jim Crow laws. Besides, the Jim Crow laws being struck down were 50 years ago, which is a while back to be calling for political support from it. As well claim support for the Republicans being responsible for ending slavery.

I think that the underclass's support for Democrats is based on perceived paybacks from the Democratic politicians, never mind that those paybacks just help keeping them needing more paybacks.

Loki


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> No she didn't, and she went on to explain what she meant.



Sorry but sending kids home to a foodless house with only a sake sandwich sounds sadistic to me. 
I think we all know what would happen to the sandwiches. 
To say you won't give the folks a dime while you spend money on the kids that live with them tells me you belive in fantasies far beyond the movies. 
And note she didn't back up and explain herself till I called her on it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

thericeguy said:


> This is the argument used by the left political side almost every single time the subject of welfare comes up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No that's your spin. 
It's difficult to do those things without harming the kids. So if you just make those broad brush statements you get a broad brush statement in return. 

I belive in the platform of the none of the above party. 

Having children you know You can't support is child abuse and should be properly punished. 
People who create this problem should be taxed to pay for it. 
Children should on the other hand should be well supported. 
But it should be a zero sum program to the government.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Sorry but sending kids home to a foodless house with only a sake sandwich sounds sadistic to me.
> I think we all know what would happen to the sandwiches.
> To say you won't give the folks a dime while you spend money on the kids that live with them tells me you belive in fantasies far beyond the movies.
> And note she didn't back up and explain herself till I called her on it.


If or when you run into a new mother, lets pretend, a 2 week old baby, and she has placed her newborn child in daycare, along with all those associated costs, so that she can return to work to help provide income for her family, what do you say to her face if she asks you, "why does the government take money from my kids to give it to people who refuse to work"? How are we, as citizens, supposed to rationalize this "I have a right not to work and I have a right to support" mentality that exists and is growing in this country?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> No that's your spin.
> It's difficult to do those things without harming the kids. So if you just make those broad brush statements you get a broad brush statement in return.
> 
> I belive in the platform of the none of the above party.
> ...


How can you tax the people that create the problem? They have no money to even feed their children. Are you implying that working people used insemenation against their will on them to create the children they cannot feed?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

The fact that there are many who game the system lends itself to the notion that giant government welfare does not and cannot work. (Perhaps that is why it was not included as a power of the Federal Government) People only tolerate cheating for so long, when they are being cheated out of their money. The government doesn't care as long as they have a captive voting block and the money spent is taken from others.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nope it never will work, only get worse as more and more people just won't get off their deed butts and leave the TV off and go get work. Not when the government says Here Ya Are have this ON US, and the rest of the tax payers be derned.
WI stopped Food Stamps for many and so far over 12,000 of them have ALREADY FOUND work. It Does work to LIMIT FOOD STAMPs to stop this abuse.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

thericeguy said:


> If or when you run into a new mother, lets pretend, a 2 week old baby, and she has placed her newborn child in daycare, along with all those associated costs, so that she can return to work to help provide income for her family, what do you say to her face if she asks you, "why does the government take money from my kids to give it to people who refuse to work"? How are we, as citizens, supposed to rationalize this "I have a right not to work and I have a right to support" mentality that exists and is growing in this country?



My answer is simple. 
"They don't"
They give it to the families of kids that need support. 
Just like they don't take it from your kids they take it from the working person. 

I firmly belive that the idea of a I have a right not to work mentality must be sstomped out among adults. 
But I don't believe in punishing the children for their parents mistakes.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

thericeguy said:


> How can you tax the people that create the problem? They have no money to even feed their children. Are you implying that working people used insemenation against their will on them to create the children they cannot feed?



I believe that anyone allowing their children to have need of aid from the government should be taxed at a high additional rate for the rest of their lives. 
The need will only be temporary.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> The fact that there are many who game the system lends itself to the notion that giant government welfare does not and cannot work. (Perhaps that is why it was not included as a power of the Federal Government) People only tolerate cheating for so long, when they are being cheated out of their money. The government doesn't care as long as they have a captive voting block and the money spent is taken from others.



If people can game the system the flaw in the system needs to be corrected.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> WI stopped Food Stamps for many and so far over 12,000 of them have ALREADY FOUND work. It Does work to LIMIT FOOD STAMPs to stop this abuse.



In the state I am in most people receiving food stamps are already working.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

If they are working then they need to LIMIT food Stamps for them, and make sure it is REALLY for the needy ONLY. As Food Stamps are meant to be for temporary assistance not a full ride for the capable. NOT A WAY OF LIFE.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> I believe that anyone allowing their children to have need of aid from the government should be taxed at a high additional rate for the rest of their lives.
> The need will only be temporary.


Oh. OK. Rational. Dont think I would support that politically, but it is s valid viewpoint.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> My answer is simple.
> "They don't"
> They give it to the families of kids that need support.
> Just like they don't take it from your kids they take it from the working person.
> ...


When you take money from one family, you are taking it from the children in that family. There is then less money to do whatever those parents choose to do with it in support of their family. 

I wont argue the details. You seem to have a fairly reasonable stance on the topic. We may not agree on all the finer points, but at least you are not screaming and yelling and name calling. 

Reason should always create the best public policies.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

I will throw out there that I find it disgraceful that our language contains the phrase "working poor". If you have a job and get out of bed and go to that job, you should not be poor. I am not saying you should have a Cadillac parked at your mansion, but for the love of God, have you seen what a family of 4 has to live in on two minimum wage or slightly better jobs? Horrendous. 

If you live no better than someone who does not work, why would you?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> If people can game the system the flaw in the system needs to be corrected.


I am afraid that the flaws are systematic and cannot be tweaked into working order. It is a case of using the wrong tool (government).


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> I am afraid that the flaws are systematic and cannot be tweaked into working order. It is a case of using the wrong tool (government).


You are correct . I could buy the cards everyday at 50 cents on the dollar....


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> If people can game the system the flaw in the system needs to be corrected.


But doing that would make it hard on those who 'really need it' therefore it would be racist


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> But doing that would make it hard on those who 'really need it' therefore it would be racist



I doubt it. 
What I think it is is that people don't agree on who really needs it ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Follow the money!
Food stamps allow people to work for a living at a much lower rate than would be otherwise necessary. 
In other words the biggest benefit is to the employer. 
Poor people on food stamps are still poor. 
But to a employer who employees 4000 people and saves four dollars an hour that's some serious money. 

Here's the funny thing I know some employers who employee one or two people and those people draw food stamps and it almost always makes those employers mad. They don't think they should be able to draw food stamps when they are making me magnificent some of Minimum wage. 
But they sure don't like the idea of the suggestion that they pay their help more so they don't qualify for food stamps.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

That formula works well for walmart

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#81ca2457cd84


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

haley1 said:


> That formula works well for walmart
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#81ca2457cd84


Works even better for the fast food giants. They pay even less and offer far less full time positions. But hey all the cool kids hate Wally world, it's the in thing to do.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Wally is a big boy, he can take it


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I think we need to re-examine the concept of "needy". I have read a great deal about the great depression and heard a lot of history about it, and I can tell you that 25% of the children in Chicago's schools were suffering from malnutrition in that time. I spoke to a county official right after I learned that, in a poor county in NM, and asked him the incidence of childhood malnutrition today, and he told me that it really only occurred in special circumstances like when the parents are so drunk or doped up they don't even rememmber they have kids, or "failure to thive" in babies, stuff like that.

I know that in my county, today, not only are there the government food stamp programs, but nearly every small community has a large food distribution program where they hand it out at a central location in each town. One of my daughters buys Subway Sandwitch gift certificates and hands them out to the homeless guyus on the streets, and others do the same.

I see big news stories about the "food uncertain" kids, then look at the ones carrying an extra 20 pounds of blubber and kid of wince, but all the 40 years we had kids in school i would ask them if they had classmates they felt did not have enough to eat or provide a winter coat of decent shoes, and the examples were always the children of drunks and dopers

My memories of my parents scrimping and buying often truly vile bargain foodstuffs is tempered by the knowledge that food actually is a LOT cheaper in terms of percentage of incomethan it was in the 1960's;

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...spent-more-of-their-money-on-food-than-you-do

A trip to the grocery was an expensive safari when I was a child. Not many homes in our little town lacked a garden, and we were meat-hunters, meat-fishermen, wild plant harvesters. It was common to eat chicken feet, scraping the skin off, beef toung, beef brains,and butchers gave away oxtail to those who couldn't afford meat. A bargain stew included chicken necks for meat, and you were expected to clean the meat out of the bone with whatever fell to hand.

This all has a kind of futile sound to it when i read it back to myself, but somehow I can't help but feel that an awful lot of folks have sold their pride and honor too cheaply to get a little free food they don't have to work for. At the VERY least, anybody with a patch of yard that has decent dirt in it can chop it up real fine and sow some turnips, which will feed them somewhat. i used to know a guy who traveled all over his county doing that at roadsides and anywhere there was bare ground and leaving notes on bullitin boards around town telling folks where the turnip patches were.

Mostly rambling, i guess, but I sure do wish some folks would at least TRY!!!.....Joe


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

joebill said:


> I think we need to re-examine the concept of "needy". I have read a great deal about the great depression and heard a lot of history about it, and I can tell you that 25% of the children in Chicago's schools were suffering from malnutrition in that time. I spoke to a county official right after I learned that, in a poor county in NM, and asked him the incidence of childhood malnutrition today, and he told me that it really only occurred in special circumstances like when the parents are so drunk or doped up they don't even rememmber they have kids, or "failure to thive" in babies, stuff like that.
> 
> I know that in my county, today, not only are there the government food stamp programs, but nearly every small community has a large food distribution program where they hand it out at a central location in each town. One of my daughters buys Subway Sandwitch gift certificates and hands them out to the homeless guyus on the streets, and others do the same.
> 
> ...


Food was more expensine in 1960 because farmers were not subsidized. Farm subsidy is a regressive tax. The rich get little benefit. The poor the most. Odd its mostly poor and middle class that complain. It benefits the working class the most.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Food was more expensine in 1960 because farmers were not subsidized. Farm subsidy is a regressive tax. The rich get little benefit. The poor the most. Odd its mostly poor and middle class that complain. It benefits the working class the most.


Say what? Farming has been subsidized since the 20's in one fashion or the other....

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/agricultural_subsidies.aspx


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Our little rural homestead is in a very small Texas community. Like many small communities, there are few job opportunities. There is a relative extreme. The haves and the have nots. The school has told us that 70% of students get a free lunch, if that helps you draw a picture. 

We have three children. They ride the bus to the public school. We raise them a certain way, trying to guide them into a proper path that does not include racism, etc. But, we have been forced to sit down with our first grader snd try to explain what racism is. Why? The little girl who shares his seat who gets on the bus in a have not section of town gives him a daily barrage of "your momma hates black people cause she white". He would come home crying. Who here thinks this 1st grade girl has any chance of growing up and integrating into society as a productive member?

I do not. I think her guardians have done her a great disservice by indoctrinating her into a culture of why try, white people wont let you. I see a future welfare recipient with a life of low hope. 

I know darn well she interrupted our plans to raise color blind children. A goal she should support.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

Turnips, I'd rather starve to death than eat turnips. Plant black eyed peas instead. Those things never stop making and you can feed an army on them. Yep, we need public pea patches instead of food stamps!


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

coolrunnin said:


> Say what? Farming has been subsidized since the 20's in one fashion or the other....
> 
> http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/agricultural_subsidies.aspx


That article starts at the depression. EVERYONE got subdidized in the depression. The feds were paying artists to paint paintings noone wanted. 

The modern forms of subsidy, and their related costs to taxpayers, did not begin until the 80s when widespread farm failures were becoming commonplace. 

Numerous times since then, the US has been successfully sued in international courts for violation of trade agreements related to farm subsidies. We just keep changing the criteria which the subsidy is based on to work around the latest rulings. It has become an ongoing struggle. 

The only stable subsidy given the farm community has come in the form of property tax breaks, which make agricultural lands relatively cheap to maintain.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Sorry, but I'd as soon eat turnips as most anything on earth as long as they are young and tender. Anybody who hates turnips MUST be a communist!.....GRIN....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

A few things that government did back then that don't get talked about too much;

1. Sent people out to teach women in rural areas how to can produce. Folks would show up from miles around

2. Herds of cattle, just skin and bones with no feed onthe pasture due to the dust bowl, they'd dig a trench, shoot all of them except a few that had some meat on them, which they gave to hungry folks, then bury the rest in the trench. My Dad walked back and forth from Arkansas to Indiana in those times, picking up work along the road. He'd see a tall hill where there had been none on the previous trip, then it would go away as the carcases deflated and the hill would be gone.

I have no strong feelings one way or another about those subsidies, but they are a far cry from rural folks buying and selling farms based on the value of the subsidies and paying people NOT to grow crops. The totality of farm subsidies today add up to a stinking cesspool that rivals the corruption of any other big business that is in a relationship with the federal government.......Joe


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

My point was not to trigger a debate about the validity of farm subsidies. It was to point out that every citizen gets a direct benefit. American food is cheap relative to some other places. 

I also wanted to point out the single largest beneficiary of farm subsidies is the food stamp program. Its just like 0% interest rates. Who benefits the most? The guy with a 19 trillion dollar credit card. Follow the money.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Farm subsidies were not set up to benefit farmers or the poor, they were set up to benefit large companies such as Cargill and ADM. These companies then, and still do, buy grain at below production price. The cost is transferred to the taxpayer, which makes those low grocery-store prices artificial and meaningless.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> Farm subsidies were not set up to benefit farmers or the poor, they were set up to benefit large companies such as Cargill and ADM. These companies then, and still do, buy grain at below production price. The cost is transferred to the taxpayer, which makes those low grocery-store prices artificial and meaningless.


Bingo. And benefits govt as well. Only need $300 in food stamps, not $500. Follow the money.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Bingo. And benefits govt as well. Only need $300 in food stamps, not $500. Follow the money.


ALl they would need to do is cancel farm subsidies, farmers would regulate themselves again, and they could take the subsidies and transfer them to food stamps if they wanted. People would be paying a far more honest price for food, and it may even make Organic food more competitive.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> ALl they would need to do is cancel farm subsidies, farmers would regulate themselves again, and they could take the subsidies and transfer them to food stamps if they wanted. People would be paying a far more honest price for food, and it may even make Organic food more competitive.


Possible, and may well be the best answer. My only objection to that, and it is not a loud booming objection, is the regressive nature of that. 

If you spend 8% of your annual income on food, that policy affects you far more than if you are a millionaire and spend .02%. That gives me internal conflict.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

You also lose export potential as prices rise. Its above my pay grade.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> Farm subsidies were not set up to benefit farmers or the poor, they were set up to benefit large companies such as Cargill and ADM. These companies then, and still do, buy grain at below production price. The cost is transferred to the taxpayer, which makes those low grocery-store prices artificial and meaningless.



quit telling the truth!

remember the ethanol subsidies there used to be, they we enacted to make money for ADM not to help the environment (which it does not anyway)


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

See, I think it is one thing to subsidize food that Americans eat (still not saying it is right) but when we export it, we are subsidizing food they eat. Heck, let them pay full price or grow their own!


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Miss Kay said:


> See, I think it is one thing to subsidize food that Americans eat (still not saying it is right) but when we export it, we are subsidizing food they eat. Heck, let them pay full price or grow their own!


Complex issues for sure.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> That article starts at the depression. EVERYONE got subdidized in the depression. The feds were paying artists to paint paintings noone wanted.
> 
> The modern forms of subsidy, and their related costs to taxpayers, did not begin until the 80s when widespread farm failures were becoming commonplace.
> 
> ...


At least FDR demanded SOMETHING in return for the money.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

joebill said:


> Sorry, but I'd as soon eat turnips as most anything on earth as long as they are young and tender. Anybody who hates turnips MUST be a communist!.....GRIN....Joe


Or worse, a yankee.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

A Yankee! Now them there is fighten words.....


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Possible, and may well be the best answer. My only objection to that, and it is not a loud booming objection, is the regressive nature of that.
> 
> If you spend 8% of your annual income on food, that policy affects you far more than if you are a millionaire and spend .02%. That gives me internal conflict.


Yes, but not very much effects millionaires anyways. For many people I think you'd see no change; they'd pay less taxes, more for food, but at least ADM and Cargill would stop stuffing themselves on the public coffers.



thericeguy said:


> You also lose export potential as prices rise. Its above my pay grade.


I've never been fond of that saying; it's self-disparaging and I refuse to work for companies that encourage me to say or think it. Just my 2 cents....


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Miss Kay said:


> A Yankee! Now them there is fighten words.....



Sure are but let me remind you last time the Yankee side won.....


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, but not very much effects millionaires anyways. For many people I think you'd see no change; they'd pay less taxes, more for food, but at least ADM and Cargill would stop stuffing themselves on the public coffers.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been fond of that saying; it's self-disparaging and I refuse to work for companies that encourage me to say or think it. Just my 2 cents....


Well, some of those things would happen, and you might agree with what I am about to say. We would pay more for food, but not less in taxes. The money would just shift to more $900 hammers ot studies on the sex drive of earthworms. I am still waiting for the temporary income tax to stop. Govt budgets never shrink.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

It would be very interesting to test exactly how low government revenues would have to drop to affect government spending in the slightest. There does not seem to be any relationship between the two. Of course, government revenues OR spending never really drop, no matter what, but it's a nice dream.....Joe


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

joebill said:


> It would be very interesting to test exactly how low government revenues would have to drop to affect government spending in the slightest. There does not seem to be any relationship between the two. Of course, government revenues OR spending never really drop, no matter what, but it's a nice dream.....Joe


They seem to have an inverse relationship actually. During a recession, when revenues drop, expenditures rise in an effort to end the recession. 

I could accept this IF they paid off the credit card bill during good times. We have yet to pay for a single bomb dropped in Vietnam.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Well, some of those things would happen, and you might agree with what I am about to say. We would pay more for food, but not less in taxes. The money would just shift to more $900 hammers ot studies on the sex drive of earthworms. I am still waiting for the temporary income tax to stop. Govt budgets never shrink.


How is the income tax temporary?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> How is the income tax temporary?


When it was enacted it was supposed to be only temporary. Nothing permanent like we have now.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mreynolds said:


> When it was enacted it was supposed to be only temporary. Nothing permanent like we have now.


That is the way most taxes are sold. Either "temporary" or a way to "Stick it to the rich" The Federal income tax was sold as both temporary and only applicable to the "Rich". As with most Federal promises, both were lies.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

And if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.


----------

