Food Stamps

[SnoopyCool]

I should have clicked on the Faq link for that Joan. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I was wrong in saying that the government is paying for it with taxpayer dollars.

SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world’s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households.

Pulled from
The Obama Phone? | FactCheck.org

[librarylady]

The government needs to get out of the welfare business and let it be privatized. There are too many holes in the system that allow people to take advantage. To make matters worse, it is us who are working that are financing this; there are still too many people who do not realize that government money is really OUR money.

Now I am not against helping people who honestly need help, but there are too many people that use the system and do not need it. There should be stricter qualifications, lower amounts of financing, and restrictions on what can be bought (especially tax-free).

How do you "privatize" welfare?

[ActYourWage]

What your failing to grasp is that I am not against helping the needy, I am against the federal government getting into the business of the indivdual. These issues can be dealt with by states, communities, charities, churches and individuals.

Yes, I agree.

[cicy33]

Seeing someone using food stamps to buy luxuries I would not buy is my business. It is no wonder this country has 13 trillion of debt, when people just close their eyes.

Not really. Here is my reasoning. Lets say that the lady you saw is poor but doesn't get food stamps and is still buying "bad" food. Is this suddenly ok? basically yes according to your philosophy So, your problem is that you want people who get "help" to only buy what you deem acceptable. I think it is not my business. Also have to keep in mind that for all you know this lady or her husband worked for years, got laid off due to no fault of their own and so technically THEY paid taxes on what they are receiving. so does this make is better or worse? Just to play devil's advocate, would you have had a problem if she was buying instant potatoes, hamburger helper, kraft mac and cheese or other similar items? I would. not because she is on food stamps but because these are horrible for you. But most people would say oh, that's okay, it's not junk food. YES it is. Have you read the labels??? the salt content could choke a horse. We rarely eat any of those items.

The country is in serious debt because someone in washington does not own a calculator or common sense!

[cicy33]

Exactly. It is our money that is being misused and wasted when people abuse the system.

Don't get me wrong by reading what I have posted regarding this subject. I totally believe that the welfare system is in serious need of reform. I do however believe that what a person buys is nobody's business. People in general tend to make assumptions and judgments without first being willing to accept that they have no idea what is going on in the person's life. It is unfair to judge another without being that person. how about instead of judging, the ones that feel so strongly they have to actually take note of another's shopping should perhaps do something about it. Write a letter, start a petition, take your issue to the government. and don't tell me that it doesn't help because we all know that every vote counts.

[disneysteve]

I totally believe that the welfare system is in serious need of reform. I do however believe that what a person buys is nobody's business.

You bring to mind an issue I deal with every day. I'm a family practice physician and we constantly have issues with what medicines are or are not covered by a patient's insurance plan. Patients (and doctors) feel that they should be able to get whatever medicine they need and their doctor recommends. The insurance companies, however, feel differently. Since they are the ones paying the bill, they feel they have the right to dictate what treatments they will or will not pay for.

I think this is very similar to the discussion we are having here. If a poor person wants to buy Coke and Doritos with their own money, I've got no issue with that. Sure, it is lousy for them, but it is their money and their choice. If, however, they are receiving public funds to buy their groceries, then it isn't unreasonable for there to be some limits and guidelines on what they can and can't buy with that money. The money doesn't belong to the individual so the individual shouldn't have free rein to spend that money however they wish.

[disneysteve]

how about instead of judging, the ones that feel so strongly they have to actually take note of another's shopping should perhaps do something about it. Write a letter, start a petition, take your issue to the government. and don't tell me that it doesn't help because we all know that every vote counts.

I really don't judge the person as much as I judge the system that allows the abuses to occur and continue. I work in a very poor area. The education level is not good. Many people truly don't know any better. They aren't abusing the system intentionally. I'd like to see all food stamp recipients required by law to attend nutrition counseling classes, cooking classes, maybe supermarket visits guided by a dietitian. Teach people how to shop for healthy stuff on a budget. Teach people how to prepare healthy meals on a budget. And put guidelines in place that limit how the food stamps can be spent.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

I, too, think that computer systems now give us the ability to make only certain foods available on food stamps, and to absolutely prevent certain foods from being purchased with them. There would be uncommon reasons for exceptions. For example, a toddler who is in a long term program of actually learning to eat after birth defects or other physiological problems might need a "prescription" from a doctor for things like sweetened puddings, juices, or soda. Sometimes there are odd medical exceptions for eating in unusual ways. Middle class, rich, and poor children alike can be affected by these things. But I see no reason not to have an interface between pediatricians (and other doctors) and the foodstamps systems of the states.

[maat55]

Interesting. I have to say, I work in a very poor, crime-ridden city. Some of my patients do not have phone service and it creates a significant hardship. They have no way to communicate with the outside world. They can't call me to schedule an appointment. I can't call them to give results of tests they have done. This sometimes creates a potentially dangerous delay in treatment. They can't call for help in an emergency. For those reasons and more, I consider phone service to be a necessity.

Did people live without phones for hundreds of years? Sure. They also lived without heating, cooling, running water, electricity, refrigeration, proper sanitation, antibiotics and a lot of other things, but millions died as a result. I'd consider every one of those things to be a necessity at this point in human evolution.

There is a reason why the founders had a separation of powers. There is absolutely no reason for the federal government to intrude into the needs of an individual, for any reason.

The federal government was established for the purpose of national needs such as defense, interstate commerse, a judicial system and post roads(infrastructure). The needs of human evolution should be dealt with by the states and people as proclaimed in admendment X of the Bill or Rights.

The reason this country is 13T in debt and has massive unfunded liabilities is due to its ability to print money, the more responsibility it gives itself, the more likely the country will demise due to the unconsitutional usurpation of power.

[maat55]

Not really. Here is my reasoning. Lets say that the lady you saw is poor but doesn't get food stamps and is still buying "bad" food. Is this suddenly ok? basically yes according to your philosophy So, your problem is that you want people who get "help" to only buy what you deem acceptable. I think it is not my business. Also have to keep in mind that for all you know this lady or her husband worked for years, got laid off due to no fault of their own and so technically THEY paid taxes on what they are receiving. so does this make is better or worse? Just to play devil's advocate, would you have had a problem if she was buying instant potatoes, hamburger helper, kraft mac and cheese or other similar items? I would. not because she is on food stamps but because these are horrible for you. But most people would say oh, that's okay, it's not junk food. YES it is. Have you read the labels??? the salt content could choke a horse. We rarely eat any of those items.

The country is in serious debt because someone in washington does not own a calculator or common sense!

IMO, any government food provision should be bare basic sustenance, the kind that only a truly hungry person would eat, same as the food charities feed the poor in 3rd world countries, MRE rations or rice and beans. The idea is to only give sustenance to the truly needy.

[cicy33]

IMO, any government food provision should be bare basic sustenance, the kind that only a truly hungry person would eat, same as the food charities feed the poor in 3rd world countries, MRE rations or rice and beans. The idea is to only give sustenance to the truly needy.

so you are saying that if someone becomes down on their luck due to no fault of their own, whatever the reason they should be treated like nobody. first of all, personally I don't like the items you mentioned. beans are gross in every form. yuk! rice, ehhh so so. mre's that is a joke, these are actually quite expensive. i am not sure the rate these days but the military allowed roughly 200 a month off post for rations about 10 years ago when my SO was in . that is for one person. so if you consider that the average family is 4 people, that gets pricey. I don't think people should be pushed even further down when they are already at their lowest point.

[maat55]

so you are saying that if someone becomes down on their luck due to no fault of their own, whatever the reason they should be treated like nobody. first of all, personally I don't like the items you mentioned. beans are gross in every form. yuk! rice, ehhh so so. mre's that is a joke, these are actually quite expensive. i am not sure the rate these days but the military allowed roughly 200 a month off post for rations about 10 years ago when my SO was in . that is for one person. so if you consider that the average family is 4 people, that gets pricey. I don't think people should be pushed even further down when they are already at their lowest point.

I have no problem with charities, families etc. giving whatever they wish, but coming from the government is a different story. BTW, I do not believe in luck, good or bad. Basic government provisions would support life and encourage self-improvement, it has nothing to do with pushing people down. Personally, I would live on the basics just to avoid touching my EF.

[cptacek]

so you are saying that if someone becomes down on their luck due to no fault of their own, whatever the reason they should be treated like nobody.

It isn't like people who oppose food stamps going towards chocolate and frozen pizza and lobster and candy for resell in a shop are saying those who are food stamps have to get down on their hands and knees and bark like a dog, just to strip away the person's humanity. Isn't what you are reading between the lines a little melodramatic?

[Seeker]

Wow, I read through this entire thread.

Maat -- I read through your writings and while I understand the position you present ("the gov't should not be doing this"), I don't honestly believe that any other entity will be able to enforce/share equitably/or provide assitance equitably, in order for the people who do need help to get that help.

Many of you are church-goers. What provisions for helping a person walking in off the street with the basics of need.... ie. a meal, a place to clean, a bit of warmth, dryness out of the rain, etc -- what does a church do with this person? How can they help? And how many days before they need to start turning away people?

For this state (this state that cannnot even come up with a budget) where would the uncorruptable people come from to transact these things? Power tends to generate corruption and greed.

The Federal Gov't is powerful. It controls. It has been known to take money from local districts; at which point, more cutbacks at the local level occur to make up for their declining monies.

The Federal Gov't takes, receives, gives and controls... at all levels: personal, city, state, and country.

So how in the world do you expect anything to be "better" by passing the responsibility?

The fact is that life is not utopian. We all each and every one of us, make a choice to our betterment or to our detriment.

The fact is, while we have that responsibility to ourself and to society to do the best we can, something ANYTHING can destroy all our effors because of "fate" -- which you don't believe in, but do you think it matters? If fate were to attack you without recourse, you'd probably get up and move on.... but not everyone can; people will need help.

We are all human... and IMO.... no single individual should be judged based on what a few people have seen or experienced as abuse of Food Stamps. Just because one has done x, does not mean that every single person does that very same thing.

Media is problematic in the fact that abuses occur; they always have. Media grabs it and sensationalizes it. We are able to get (shall we say) negative information very easily. Good news is not popular.

People do get better in their needing requirements when they are down, but it takes time and understanding and help sometimes to be able to see that we might have done something differently to make it better for that future; our future.

You can fix things one at a time, one step at a time, but you cannot fix anything by dumping or transferring the issue to other entities that cannot be controled or monitored.

It's not going to get better until each and every one of us tries to understand and help other people get the help they need in whatever way is feasible in your local communities. One person at a time... one day at a time... one life at a time.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

Maat -- I read through your writings and while I understand the position you present ("the gov't should not be doing this"), I don't honestly believe that any other entity will be able to enforce/share equitably/or provide assitance equitably, in order for the people who do need help to get that help.

I've spent a considerable amount of time studying the issue of centralized power. Our Founders understood the danger in having an all powerful central government. They went to great effort in order to establish a country with separation of powers for a reason.

I firmly believe in adhering to principles and not allowing emotions to detract from implementing proper solutions to the challenges of the individual.

The federal government has specific powers that do not allow it to interfere in the individuals personal needs. It is to only defend an indivduals liberty, rights(Bill or Rights) and property, not provide food, clothing, shelter, education or healthcare.

It is given allowance to promote general welfare through infrastructure(interstate highways,air trafic control, etc.), aid in finding cures for large scale diseases(cancer, diabetes, etc.), relief for large scale disasters, but not to distort markets by engaging in loans(housing, educational) or providing individual healthcare(medicare or medicaid). Also, it should not be in the retirement business(SS).

Many of you are church-goers. What provisions for helping a person walking in off the street with the basics of need.... ie. a meal, a place to clean, a bit of warmth, dryness out of the rain, etc -- what does a church do with this person? How can they help? And how many days before they need to start turning away people?

I found 6 homeless shelters(not including area shelters) in Tulsa, most are faith based. My old church had a food program. It is the responsibility of the people and states to see to the needs of their indigent, homeless and hungry.

For this state (this state that cannnot even come up with a budget) where would the uncorruptable people come from to transact these things? Power tends to generate corruption and greed.

My state has a balanced budget law, it is not 13T in debt like the federal government. State and local governments are much more contained by its constituents than a federal government.

The Federal Gov't is powerful. It controls. It has been known to take money from local districts; at which point, more cutbacks at the local level occur to make up for their declining monies.

It was not designed to be. And the federal government should not be taxing the states and individuals into socialism.

So how in the world do you expect anything to be "better" by passing the responsibility?

Responsibilty should start from the individual up: individual, family, friends, church/charities, community to state.

The fact is, while we have that responsibility to ourself and to society to do the best we can, something ANYTHING can destroy all our effors because of "fate" -- which you don't believe in, but do you think it matters? If fate were to attack you without recourse, you'd probably get up and move on.... but not everyone can; people will need help.

In principle, when an individual believes he/she has to be self-reliant to survive, he/she will act accordingly. The federal government rewards irresponsibilty and punishes achievement. The truly needy(a vastly lower number than is deemed in need by federal government definitions) will find help locally.

We are all human... and IMO.... no single individual should be judged based on what a few people have seen or experienced as abuse of Food Stamps. Just because one has done x, does not mean that every single person does that very same thing.

Cookie cutter federal programs are filled with x's. If they were to only recieve very basic rations, you would find out just how many were truly in need.

Media is problematic in the fact that abuses occur; they always have. Media grabs it and sensationalizes it. We are able to get (shall we say) negative information very easily. Good news is not popular.

This is irrelevent. The federal government has way over-stepped its enumerated powers.

You can fix things one at a time, one step at a time, but you cannot fix anything by dumping or transferring the issue to other entities that cannot be controled or monitored.

This is just one of the reasons why the federal government should not be intruding into personal needs.

It's not going to get better until each and every one of us tries to understand and help other people get the help they need in whatever way is feasible in your local communities. One person at a time... one day at a time... one life at a time.

Again, this is not a federal government issue, and is very poorly handled at that level.