• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Mexico to end food stamp supplement

VanceMack said:
Maybe you do...but I dont know if you get it. Many of these people mass reproduce not because they arent smart enough to know what causes babies or because they cant get birth control, but because they see having babies as a salve to their pathetic lives. Men impregnate as many women as they can so they can demonstrate their much man status (so WHAT if they dont have a job...or half their teeth). Women have their little babies to show how valid they are as women...who CARES if they dont really know who the father is or cant independently provide for any of them.

This isnt a platform for or against abortions and using it as such is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Did I use the word, abortion? No, I did not.

As to what I did say, the fact, again, is that millions of women and men us Planned Parenthood to obtain low cost birth control. Eliminate PP, you eliminate their access to that source and it is not illogical to believe we will see an increase in unintended pregnancies. It costs taxpayers more to raise children than it does to provide low cost birth control.
 
OscarB63 said:
who said anything about abortions? would it hurt poor people to wear a ****ing condom or take the pill? they hand out condoms for free and you can get the pill at the "free clinic". there is no excuse for these people to keep pumping out kids like litters of kittens and then expecting the productive population to support them.
Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:
so what if they're not free. make a freaking choice. give up a pack of smokes or a case of beer each month and you can afford to buy condoms.
Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:
both.


no reversal. they are available for free, but if...GASP...the well dries up, they are still cheaper than a pack of smokes or a case of beer.
Click to expand...

You said because birth control is free, there is no excuse, then I presented you with evidence that there will be less access to free birth control because the GOP is shutting down Planned Parenthood.

You changed your argument, "so what if it isn't free", thus eliminating your first point.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I have a friend who had polio as a child. He uses a wheelchair. Bright guy and likable. He has had to claw his way to meaningful employment all his life. Disabled people are never likely to get the good jobs, if they get any job. They are usually underemployed. Disabled people are often the first to be let go. Usually it is because they have the crap jobs that are the first jobs to go in a cut back. As they downsized two years ago they cut him to half time. No benefits. They cut his hours again. He doesn't want anyone to know but he is now receiving food stamps. He no longer has health insurance. If they cut his food stamps he'll have to eat fewer meals. The state recently agree to set aside half a billion dollars to attract new business by offering corporate welfare.
Click to expand...
What have you done to help him?

.
 
Let's go ahead and address some of the stupid arguments that have been laid down in this thread:

1. "The state can't afford this." - Food is a necessity. The state is nothing more than a collection of people, who are going to pay for the cost of food one way or another, NO MATTER WHAT. Just because the expense disappears from the state's balance sheet doesn't make it go away.

2. "ZOMG personal responsibility!" - Most of the recipients of food stamps are children, disabled people, elderly people, people who are temporarily unemployed, or people who are employed but don't earn enough to make ends meet. People who choose not to work are a small fraction. This is especially true now, given the current state of the economy. Look around you. With unemployment at 8.7%, the problem is NOT that there aren't enough people who want to work to fill the available jobs...it's that there aren't enough available jobs for the people who want to work.

3. "Let's let children die to teach their parents a lesson about opening their legs." - We'll go right past the fact that the people who believe this are disgusting sociopaths, or that it isn't the kid's fault, because I know that pointing that out won't convince them of anything. So let's instead look at it from an economic perspective. By any measure, a child is an enormous burden on the parent for at least the first 18 years of their life...food stamps or not. Slightly increasing the cost of raising the kid would have a negligible impact on a person's decision to have a kid or not.

4. "This will encourage people to work." - Only for the few people who choose not to work, and there aren't that many of them. For everyone else, it will create a whole host of macroeconomic problems and individual hardships. If you take food away from kids, they'll be less likely to do well in school and therefore less likely to be successful when they grow up. If you take food away from the elderly, then people suddenly become more risk-averse and therefore the dynamism of the economy suffers. If you take food away from the working poor, you merely make it even more difficult for them to improve their situation by forcing them to work more hours (time which could be spent acquiring skills/education).
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Let's go ahead and address some of the stupid arguments that have been laid down in this thread:

1. "The state can't afford this." - Food is a necessity. The state is nothing more than a collection of people, who are going to pay for the cost of food one way or another, NO MATTER WHAT. Just because the expense disappears from the state's balance sheet doesn't make it go away.

2. "ZOMG personal responsibility!" - Most of the recipients of food stamps are children, disabled people, elderly people, people who are temporarily unemployed, or people who are employed but don't earn enough to make ends meet. People who choose not to work are a small fraction. This is especially true now, given the current state of the economy. Look around you. With unemployment at 8.7%, the problem is NOT that there aren't enough people who want to work to fill the available jobs...it's that there aren't enough available jobs for the people who want to work.

3. "Let's let children die to teach their parents a lesson about opening their legs." - We'll go right past the fact that the people who believe this are disgusting sociopaths, or that it isn't the kid's fault, because I know that pointing that out won't convince them of anything. So let's instead look at it from an economic perspective. By any measure, a child is an enormous burden on the parent for at least the first 18 years of their life...food stamps or not. Slightly increasing the cost of raising the kid would have a negligible impact on a person's decision to have a kid or not.

4. "This will encourage people to work." - Only for the few people who choose not to work, and there aren't that many of them. For everyone else, it will create a whole host of macroeconomic problems and individual hardships. If you take food away from kids, they'll be less likely to do well in school and therefore less likely to be successful when they grow up. If you take food away from the elderly, then people suddenly become more risk-averse and therefore the dynamism of the economy suffers. If you take food away from the working poor, you merely make it even more difficult for them to improve their situation by forcing them to work more hours (time which could be spent acquiring skills/education).
Click to expand...

So suggesting that adults should engage in personal responsibility is a stupid argument? Wow, you really are a liberal...
 
Kandahar said:
Let's go ahead and address some of the stupid arguments that have been laid down in this thread:

Kandahar said:
1. "The state can't afford this." - Food is a necessity. The state is nothing more than a collection of people, who are going to pay for the cost of food one way or another, NO MATTER WHAT. Just because the expense disappears from the state's balance sheet doesn't make it go away.
Click to expand...

By this convoluted Logic, the State should "pay" for everything, since after all, it doesn't matter how it gets paid right?
Kandahar said:
2. "ZOMG personal responsibility!" - Most of the recipients of food stamps are children, disabled people, elderly people, people who are temporarily unemployed, or people who are employed but don't earn enough to make ends meet. People who choose not to work are a small fraction. This is especially true now, given the current state of the economy. Look around you. With unemployment at 8.7%, the problem is NOT that there aren't enough people who want to work to fill the available jobs...it's that there aren't enough available jobs for the people who want to work.
Click to expand...
Always, we must spend for "the Children". Doesn't matter if there is fraud, waste, abuse or just plain "We're going broke", if one child, doesn't get his dessert, a crime that could have been prevented has occurred, if only we CARED more.
Kandahar said:
3. "Let's let children die to teach their parents a lesson about opening their legs." - We'll go right past the fact that the people who believe this are disgusting sociopaths, or that it isn't the kid's fault, because I know that pointing that out won't convince them of anything. So let's instead look at it from an economic perspective. By any measure, a child is an enormous burden on the parent for at least the first 18 years of their life...food stamps or not. Slightly increasing the cost of raising the kid would have a negligible impact on a person's decision to have a kid or not.
Click to expand...
More "For the Children" heart string non-sense. If you pay people to have kids, guess what...
Kandahar said:
4. "This will encourage people to work." - Only for the few people who choose not to work, and there aren't that many of them. For everyone else, it will create a whole host of macroeconomic problems and individual hardships. If you take food away from kids, they'll be less likely to do well in school and therefore less likely to be successful when they grow up. If you take food away from the elderly, then people suddenly become more risk-averse and therefore the dynamism of the economy suffers. If you take food away from the working poor, you merely make it even more difficult for them to improve their situation by forcing them to work more hours (time which could be spent acquiring skills/education).
Click to expand...
You cannot expect poor people to actually "work", that's unfair, what about the rich kid who drives a Benz on his 16th birthday, how is THAT fair???????

Remember folks, think of "the Children" and don't forget to Vote Democrat, or a kid might not get his bowl of fruit loops in the morning.
Click to expand...
 
Kandahar said:
Let's go ahead and address some of the stupid arguments that have been laid down in this thread:

1. "The state can't afford this." - Food is a necessity. The state is nothing more than a collection of people, who are going to pay for the cost of food one way or another, NO MATTER WHAT. Just because the expense disappears from the state's balance sheet doesn't make it go away.

2. "ZOMG personal responsibility!" - Most of the recipients of food stamps are children, disabled people, elderly people, people who are temporarily unemployed, or people who are employed but don't earn enough to make ends meet. People who choose not to work are a small fraction. This is especially true now, given the current state of the economy. Look around you. With unemployment at 8.7%, the problem is NOT that there aren't enough people who want to work to fill the available jobs...it's that there aren't enough available jobs for the people who want to work.

3. "Let's let children die to teach their parents a lesson about opening their legs." - We'll go right past the fact that the people who believe this are disgusting sociopaths, or that it isn't the kid's fault, because I know that pointing that out won't convince them of anything. So let's instead look at it from an economic perspective. By any measure, a child is an enormous burden on the parent for at least the first 18 years of their life...food stamps or not. Slightly increasing the cost of raising the kid would have a negligible impact on a person's decision to have a kid or not.

4. "This will encourage people to work." - Only for the few people who choose not to work, and there aren't that many of them. For everyone else, it will create a whole host of macroeconomic problems and individual hardships. If you take food away from kids, they'll be less likely to do well in school and therefore less likely to be successful when they grow up. If you take food away from the elderly, then people suddenly become more risk-averse and therefore the dynamism of the economy suffers. If you take food away from the working poor, you merely make it even more difficult for them to improve their situation by forcing them to work more hours (time which could be spent acquiring skills/education).
Click to expand...

When someone starts with the "children" ****, I ignore them. I'm ignoring you, and so are many others I have no doubt. Let me tell you something, I have children. I have 3 of them, and I raised them. You want to tell me I hate children??? You got the balls to say it to me and mean it? I am sick and tired of liberals using children as human shields for their socialist agenda.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
By this convoluted Logic, the State should "pay" for everything, since after all, it doesn't matter how it gets paid right?
Click to expand...

No. Food is a necessity, and people will pay for it one way or another, regardless of whether it's on the state's books or not. So saying that a state (i.e. the people) "can't afford it" is meaningless, because ultimately society does not have a choice but to pay for it one way or another. On the other hand, an Xbox 360 is NOT a necessity, and if the state doesn't buy you one there's a good chance you won't buy one for yourself. And if you don't get an Xbox 360, you won't be "paying" for it in other ways (like you would if you don't get food).

MrVicchio said:
Always, we must spend for "the Children". Doesn't matter if there is fraud, waste, abuse or just plain "We're going broke", if one child, doesn't get his dessert, a crime that could have been prevented has occurred, if only we CARED more.

More "For the Children" heart string non-sense. If you pay people to have kids, guess what...

You cannot expect poor people to actually "work", that's unfair, what about the rich kid who drives a Benz on his 16th birthday, how is THAT fair???????

Remember folks, think of "the Children" and don't forget to Vote Democrat, or a kid might not get his bowl of fruit loops in the morning.
Click to expand...

I knew that you'd just respond with talking points, rather than anything resembling a coherent argument refuting anything I said. That's OK. Our arguments can speak for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
No. Food is a necessity, and people will pay for it one way or another, regardless of whether it's on the state's books or not. So saying that a state (i.e. the people) "can't afford it" is meaningless, because ultimately society does not have a choice but to pay for it one way or another. On the other hand, an Xbox 360 is NOT a necessity, and if the state doesn't buy you one there's a good chance you won't buy one for yourself. And if you don't get an Xbox 360, you won't be "paying" for it in other ways (like you would with a lack of food).
Click to expand...
Power, Water, Housing, Fuel. Necessaries. The State should pay for them then yes?


Kandahar said:
I knew that you'd just respond with talking points, rather than anything resembling a coherent argument refuting anything I said. That's OK. Our arguments can speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

Your argument is "For the Children".

That's it, no matter what embellishments you layer, the final point is always the same;

We cannot cut back, cut or reduce this entitlement program, because "the children" might suffer.
 
MrVicchio said:
Power, Water, Housing, Fuel. Necessaries. The State should pay for them then yes?
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the state paying for those things for people who cannot afford them.

MrVicchio said:
Your argument is "For the Children".
Click to expand...

Actually one of my arguments was that if you let "the children" grow up malnourished, they aren't going to do well in school. And then you're going to have more crime, more poverty, and society as a whole is worse off. I also addressed how it's bad for adults too, but I knew you wouldn't actually respond to any of the points I made.

MrVicchio said:
That's it, no matter what embellishments you layer, the final point is always the same;

We cannot cut back, cut or reduce this entitlement program, because "the children" might suffer.
Click to expand...

And the fact that you are so quick to ridicule any policy that relieves children's suffering exposes you to be a misanthrope. But whatever, I don't expect you to be convinced of anything.
 
Councilman said:
My best response to this is that it's is just wrong.

There are people who can get by without buy there are still others who need Food Stamps to survive.

I pray this doesn't spread.
Click to expand...
It's not as bad you think. It's just a suppliment to food stamps that only goes back to 2007 when NM was able to afford it. Although with food prices going up because of gas prices, I'm sure it will be felt.
Hopefully foodbanks and churches will be able to take up any slack.
I also wonder if they did any investigating for any faud before they just decided to cut everyone? That's what I would have done.


State nixes food-stamp supplement for seniors - The Santa Fe New Mexican
About 4,000 low-income elderly and disabled New Mexicans will see their food-stamp benefits drop in July because of state budget cuts.

Gov. Susana Martinez's administration plans to end a state program that supplements federal food-stamp benefits for the elderly and disabled to ensure they get at least $25 a month in assistance.

"That's 4,000 seniors who will have less money for food. That's the impact," Ruth Hoffman, director of Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in New Mexico, said Tuesday.

New Mexicans who qualify for $16 a month in federal food stamps — the minimum amount from the federal government — also get an extra $9 a month from the state to make certain their combined assistance is $25.

But the Democratic-controlled Legislature provided no money to continue the supplemental benefits in the upcoming budget year, which starts July 1.
Click to expand...
 
danarhea said:
You know, I have been very vocal about abuse of the Food Stamp program by those who don't want to pull their own weight in society. But Food Stamps are not for the lazy. They are for the children, who are innocent.

Ending this program in New Mexico is wrong on so many levels. But, the budget must be balanced. I propose that we take all the elderly and disabled out to the countryside, dig a big hole, and then shoot them all and bulldoze them into the hole. Problem solved. Budget is now balanced, and we can give the money saved to AT&T, which is a welfare loafer we seem to like. [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

I have a better idea. Lets all donate to food banks and charities so they can take up the $9-$16 dollars less these people will be getting.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I see no point in any state giving any assistance if it's meager and non-beneficial.

How much food can be bought and consumed for $15 , $25? That's what they've been getting. . . surely that's not actually enough to live off of already.

Where are the people demanding that they pay *more* than that? Why are people offended that such a small amount is being taken away instead?
Click to expand...

It's what they get on top of their regular food stamps. It's a suppliment the state has been giving them for 4 yrs.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I have a friend who had polio as a child. He uses a wheelchair. Bright guy and likable. He has had to claw his way to meaningful employment all his life. Disabled people are never likely to get the good jobs, if they get any job. They are usually underemployed. Disabled people are often the first to be let go. Usually it is because they have the crap jobs that are the first jobs to go in a cut back. As they downsized two years ago they cut him to half time. No benefits. They cut his hours again. He doesn't want anyone to know but he is now receiving food stamps. He no longer has health insurance. If they cut his food stamps he'll have to eat fewer meals. The state recently agree to set aside half a billion dollars to attract new business by offering corporate welfare.
Click to expand...

Jobs trump food stamps don't you think?
 
MrVicchio said:
Kandahar said:
Let's go ahead and address some of the stupid arguments that have been laid down in this thread:



By this convoluted Logic, the State should "pay" for everything, since after all, it doesn't matter how it gets paid right?

Always, we must spend for "the Children". Doesn't matter if there is fraud, waste, abuse or just plain "We're going broke", if one child, doesn't get his dessert, a crime that could have been prevented has occurred, if only we CARED more.

More "For the Children" heart string non-sense. If you pay people to have kids, guess what...

You cannot expect poor people to actually "work", that's unfair, what about the rich kid who drives a Benz on his 16th birthday, how is THAT fair???????

Remember folks, think of "the Children" and don't forget to Vote Democrat, or a kid might not get his bowl of fruit loops in the morning.
Click to expand...

These people are nothing more than god damn socialists. They want to spend your money to help people, but not their own. They get Democrats to pass their socialist laws for them. No doubt they never give much of their own money to charities. You know I saw a bumbersticker once that remains my favorite.

"Vote Democrat, it's easier than getting a job."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
American said:
They want to spend your money to help people, but not their own. They get Democrats to pass their socialist laws for them. No doubt they never give much of their own money to charities. You know I saw a bumbersticker once that remains my favorite.

"Vote Democrat, it's easier than getting a job."
Click to expand...

Last year I donated about $15,000 to charities that work to eradicate malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa. I'm also in the process of starting my own non-profit charity to provide free online education to underprivileged children in failing schools in the United States (and perhaps eventually to children in developing countries as well). I do this in addition to working a full-time job.

What do you do again?
 
Gina said:
Did I use the word, abortion? No, I did not.

As to what I did say, the fact, again, is that millions of women and men us Planned Parenthood to obtain low cost birth control. Eliminate PP, you eliminate their access to that source and it is not illogical to believe we will see an increase in unintended pregnancies. It costs taxpayers more to raise children than it does to provide low cost birth control.
Click to expand...

You dragged planned parenthood into a discussion about food stamps? As if the people darn it arent going to behave responsibly now that they dont have as many foodstamps. Now we will have a bunch of unplanned pregancies! Oh woe!

211.org. Look up your zip code. I GURANTEE you will find funded services that can hand out condoms for free.
 
Kandahar;1059532227[B said:
]I don't have a problem with the state paying for those things for people who cannot afford them[/B].
Click to expand...

I have a better idea. YOU pay for them. And their cell phones. And their smokes. And their Playstation. And their alcohol. And their drugs. YOU pay for them. Stop expecting other people to stand behind the **** you profess to believe in.
 
MrVicchio said:
Spending money you don't have is the responsible, smart way to run a State, look at California!
Click to expand...

What about letting people go hungry in the wealthiest country in the world... well, #2 anyway.
 
hazlnut said:
What about letting people go hungry in the wealthiest country in the world... well, #2 anyway.
Click to expand...

You know - they could solve all that if they just gave away food instead of throwing it in the trash at restaurants and grocery stores - consider it tax-deductable, require it to be donated to charity - cost to the state = $0.00. How many people can billions of pounds of a full variety of foods feed each year?
 
hazlnut said:
What about letting people go hungry in the wealthiest country in the world... well, #2 anyway.
Click to expand...

That's why I suggested donating to food banks or your local churches. There's no need for people to go hungry in this country. I just don't understand why it's the governments job to take care of every need. NM can't afford the subsidies anymore and people will have a few less food stamps each month. The people who can afford it, can step up to the plate. We have two food banks in my area, plus churches who give out loads of food. When there is a shortage people step up their donations. I do fear that food and gas prices may make things harder, but that's the economy we are living in right now. People just need to stop counting on government so much.
 
Barbbtx said:
That's why I suggested donating to food banks or your local churches. There's no need for people to go hungry in this country. I just don't understand why it's the governments job to take care of every need. NM can't afford the subsidies anymore and people will have a few less food stamps each month. The people who can afford it, can step up to the plate. We have two food banks in my area, plus churches who give out loads of food. When there is a shortage people step up their donations. I do fear that food and gas prices may make things harder, but that's the economy we are living in right now. People just need to stop counting on government so much.
Click to expand...

I donate everything ot local charities and families in my town if I think I'm not going to buy it - I coupon shop a lot and come away with overstock and I can't keep it readily in my house.
 
hazlnut said:
What about letting people go hungry in the wealthiest country in the world... well, #2 anyway.
Click to expand...

Amazing...you would think with all those concerned caring liberals out there this would NEVER be a problem. SHAME on them!

Oh...wait...wait...you are still on that "someone ELSE should feed them" kick...I see...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom