posted on June 11, 2001 10:54:52 PM new
It may be helpful to note that the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 (who's ball?) placed several restrictions on access and use of the food stamp and several other programs.
posted on June 11, 2001 10:56:10 PM new
I apologize if I seemed rude.
What I really meant is that while it might be instinctive to think "boy, I'm a sucker" for working and seeing someone pay for food with governmental assistance. That's natural. But bear in mind that most people using food stamps aren't welfare cheats. Most welfare recipients are people who are down on their luck. Surely all of us can find the tiniest place of compassion within our hearts and not begrudge them the charity that they sadly are reduced to accepting.
And last of all, we shouldn't think to imagine it's our place to judge what they're buying. You may be seeing Welfare Queen buying candy with your money, whereas really it's poor unfortunate single Mom who's been laid off who's only buying a little something for her child who certainly did nothing to cause their condition and ought to have a candy bar every now and again, like everyone else .
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Jun 11, 2001 10:57 PM ]
posted on June 11, 2001 11:02:15 PM newkrsIt's not your money.
It isn't my money in the sense that I can snatch it out of their hand and say "Mine! Mine!" It is my money in that it comes from the government which I pay into.
If a space shuttle blows up, it's my money, if a prisoner gets steak, it's my money, if they build an unnecessary weapon for the military, it is my money, if the person is using food stamps, it's my money.
While you may feel different, I suggest you save your keystrokes trying to convince me otherwise. This opinion of mine is 'non-negotiable'.
posted on June 11, 2001 11:09:25 PM newBut bear in mind that most people using food stamps aren't welfare cheats. Most welfare recipients are people who are down on their luck.
I'm in 100% agreement with that, most are. I'm sure there are many that refuse to apply for food stamps out of pride that really need them.
posted on June 12, 2001 12:31:50 AM new
"The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) affected federal nutrition programs in several ways.
The Food Stamp Program was substantially scaled back through: adjustments in the Thrifty Food Plan, a low-cost food budget used to calculate food stamp awards; elimination of benefits to most legal immigrants; creation of time-limits for benefits to able-bodied adults without dependents; and changes in eligibility and income criteria for families. The new law also mandated that all states convert benefit awards from paper coupons to Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) systems by 2002. In subsequent legislation, Congress has restored some benefits to select populations and given states options to restore benefits and provide work and training opportunities to able-bodied adults without dependents and other populations excluded from the federal program".
A very workable program of improvements to a program enacted by a thinking Democratic Administration not taken with ignorant bellyaching and consumed with blaming others for the problems existing in the country, problems resulting in large part from irresponsible republican redistribution of federal monies from people oriented programs into ones which provide for the health and well being of the military-industrial profiteering modern day pirates who support them as they loot the federal coffers for their own and no other good.
posted on June 12, 2001 01:29:36 AM new
"It may be helpful to note that the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 (who's ball?)..."-krs
The Republicans. If it were up to the Democrats, why didn;t they do it before "94 when they controlled the White House and BOTH houses of Congress? Cause they didn't want to. They had to wait until the Republicans took over, and shoved it down Clintons throat.
posted on June 12, 2001 02:42:51 AM new
The Welfare Reform Act was shoved down Clinton's throat. As a politician, of course he tried to take credit for it later, but it was something he didn't want. He and the Democrats weren't able to block it, all they could manage to do was soften it. To crow about it as a Democrat victory is to be sadly misinformed.
Studies have shown that since the reforms more people who are receiving assistance are going hungry than before. If this is the goal, more hungry people, then it was a good thing.
posted on June 12, 2001 02:55:17 AM new
"Bill would've vetoed it if that were the case."-krs
Please. He always took credit for something if the polls showed he should, and if not, he'd place blame elsewhere. The guy never had his own idea the whole time in office. It wasn't about who had the idea, but how he could spin the hell out of the mindless liberals of the country so bad, that in the end, everything was a great idea that had his name attached to it. If it didn't have anything to do with him, and it was a great idea, he would still attach his name to it, and if it was a disaster, no matter how responsible he really was, he was sure to lay blame elsewhere. None of this is new though, it just amazes me that on top of everything, he even had some of you adults fooled into thinking he wasn't impeached. Don't deny it now, I have evidence of the ignorance. Ignorance was the major byproduct og his administration. There is so much of it still left over, perhaps we could export it, or trade it for some oil.
That would be nice, but then again, some of you refuse to let go of your share of it.
posted on June 12, 2001 02:57:23 AM new
Sure, I was abusing the notorious republican ignorance in posting it, but I was also waiting for someone to knowledgeably insist that it was in truth a republican victory so tha I could then point out the truth of the result as Donny just has done.
posted on June 12, 2001 04:44:50 AM newNow what will you say to Donny's starving babies?
To paraphrase that old wrong quote - (Don't) Let them eat frozen pizza!
Anyway, I think whichever side you come down on in this issue boils down to something James, intentionally or not, touched on in the wording of one of his earlier posts - whether you see welfare as "entitlement" or "charity." Things swing back and forth. Used to be, it was "charity." Then it became "entitlement," now it's moving back to "charity" again. I'm a product of my time, so to me, it's "entitlement."
posted on June 12, 2001 05:35:16 AM new
To me, it's assistance. So many people assume that the single example that they see while in a supermarket line, or more than one to be fair, define the entirety of the body of recipients of such aid. I have known several people, many severals to be fair, who have been able to realize for themselves a way of life which otherwise would not have been possible for them. I've hired more than a few of those.
I have known quite a number of single mothers who through perhaps no fault of their own found themselves stuck in a quagmire of expenses with no end in sight but were able to, because of the assistance programs that they were eligible to avail, care for their child (or children) and work and go to school amd ultimately obtain a level of employment which removed their need for assistance. We have had some of them here.
Yet many would condemn people to the quagmire because of what they hear, or because of what they may run across in a day to day necessarily limited exposure to POSSIBLE abusers. They do that, shrieking "my money", without any real idea of the circumstances of those they deride and would abandon.
posted on June 12, 2001 06:00:29 AM new
Corporate welfare eats up more of every dollar than Social welfare, yet nobody ever complains about that. WHY is that?
I guess it's easier to complain about the alleged misuse of foodstamps. Frozen pizzas, drinking water, and name brand ketchup....sheesh.
posted on June 12, 2001 06:13:33 AM new
Assistance! Yes, I had forgotten that. Charity, assistance, entitlements... Three words for the same basic thing, but each designation has different connotations. It's interesting.
posted on June 12, 2001 06:28:32 AM new
Yes corporate welfare eats up more of your tax dollars the regular welfare. I once had the figures for one year awhile back. Whereas welfare to the poor cost every american a couple cents a day, corporate welfare costs americans DOLLARS a day.
Kind of nicely sums it up for those who don't "believe" that coporate welfare exists. Of course, they know it exists; they just hate admitting it as there is no justification for it.
posted on June 12, 2001 08:27:39 AM new
The food stamp and welfare system is NOT abused? Huh?
I guess that is why, in my state, they are now giving what looks like a debit card to people in place of the old food stamps?
I thought the reason was for conveinence, but it was so many were selling the food stamps for cash. They would sell them for 50 cents on the 'dollar' or less. This way they cannot sell them. I guess they could sell the little debit food stamp card, but they would totally be screwed out of any food?
I don't know exactly how it works here, but I asked a clerk when using my debit card, what is this button, the one that says Benefits, he said, it for the food stamp card.
posted on June 12, 2001 08:42:12 AM new
I work in a grocery store. I see all that kind of stuff everyday. The frozen pizzas, water, candy, brand names, does not bother me. What I have seen many times that bothers me alittle is when people use foodstamps(and possibly their months supply) to buy party trays, huge cakes, wedding cakes, etc.. Now I would think that a cake is a prepared food, but I guess its not. Food Stamps are given to families who are in need, to feed that particular family. Not to feed everybody who goes to a party. And what will the family use to buy groceries for the rest of the month?
I have also seen people cashing their welfare checks then go in the lottery line and spend 100.00 on lottery.
posted on June 12, 2001 08:54:31 AM newBy eliminating paper coupons that may be lost, sold or stolen, EBT may help cut back on food stamp fraud. EBT creates an electronic record of each food stamp transaction, making it easier to identify and document instances where food stamps are "trafficked," or exchanged for cash, drugs, or other illegal goods.
posted on June 12, 2001 09:10:46 AM new
And with a Libertarian view.....
The use of the debit card rather than untraceable paper coupons allows the gubberment to track the poor I case they are ever needed for Solient Green production......or just general persecution.
