• 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!

USDA moves to end questionable food stamp ads after criticism

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
USDA moves to end questionable food stamp ads after criticism | Fox News

The Department of Agriculture moved Friday to "cease future production" of advertisements that encourage people to go on food stamps, FoxNews.com has learned, following criticism over what was described as an "aggressive" campaign to grow enrollment.

The department had come under fire for a 10-part series of Spanish-language "novelas" that trumpeted the benefits of the food stamp program. The radio ads were produced in 2008, but continued to be available for use.

After those ads drew scrutiny, though, the USDA removed them from its website.

This surprises me. A day after the Obama Administration attempts to remove the work requirement from the welfare reform law they back down on the “everyone go get food stamps” advertisements?

This government push to get people addicted to welfare and government assistance just smells like a crack dealer giving some kid his first few rocks for free.
 
May I suggest that this is simply an example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing?

Most of these many government agencies are run by political appointees whose primary qualifications are which country club they golf at. It's natural that you would have conflict of direction. I assure you that Obama does not personally run all the government oir even have much control if he wanted to.

USDA moves to end questionable food stamp ads after criticism | Fox News



This surprises me. A day after the Obama Administration attempts to remove the work requirement from the welfare reform law they back down on the “everyone go get food stamps” advertisements?

This government push to get people addicted to welfare and government assistance just smells like a crack dealer giving some kid his first few rocks for free.
 
What is most bothersome about these ads is that somebody in the government thinks that food stamps are a good way to get in shape or to better your life. It should be a temporary way to get by while you find another way to make money, not a life style.
 
May I suggest that this is simply an example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing?

Most of these many government agencies are run by political appointees whose primary qualifications are which country club they golf at. It's natural that you would have conflict of direction. I assure you that Obama does not personally run all the government oir even have much control if he wanted to.

I would consider the “right hand/left hand” a more plausible explanation if the food stamp advertisement issue hadn’t been such a hot button topic recently but I find it hard to believe that the USDA Undersecretary made this decision without approval from the White House.

Is it possible? Sure. I think this and the illegal HHS revision to welfare reform occurring within 24 hours of each other wasn’t a mistake however.
 
A lesson in irony.

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest number of food stamps and free meals ever.

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

This ends today's lesson.
 
A lesson in irony.

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest number of food stamps and free meals ever.

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

This ends today's lesson.

People are not squirrels.
 
People are not squirrels.

We are still animals and if we let others take care of us, we forget how to take care of ourselves. I’m pretty sure the courts agree with this because they are always ordering that a spouse must pay alimony to another spouse after a divorce.
 
We are still animals and if we let others take care of us, we forget how to take care of ourselves. I’m pretty sure the courts agree with this because they are always ordering that a spouse must pay alimony to another spouse after a divorce.

That's not why courts grants alimony -- but whatever.

Here's a fact sheet from the USDA:

The average length of time a participant stays on the program is 9 months.

Can you show that long-term dependency on SNAP is widespread? Obviously, the precipitous rise in SNAP enrollment due to our recent recession would skew that number lower, but this fact sheet references 2006 data, so it predates the rise. Seems that most people are off the program within a year. Perhaps your theories about dependency don't hold up to scrutiny?
 
That's not why courts grants alimony -- but whatever.

Here's a fact sheet from the USDA:



Can you show that long-term dependency on SNAP is widespread? Obviously, the precipitous rise in SNAP enrollment due to our recent recession would skew that number lower, but this fact sheet references 2006 data, so it predates the rise. Seems that most people are off the program within a year. Perhaps your theories about dependency don't hold up to scrutiny?

Sure it is in many cases. If someone has been a homemaker for so many years that their likely prospects for earning a decent income have diminished, the court will take that into consideration.

Another similar scenario is the long term unemployed person. The longer they are out of work, the harder it is for them to find a job. Welfare and food stamps propagate poverty by allowing capable people to get their needs met without working. Now the Obama Administration is trying to waive the work requirement altogether.
 
Sure it is in many cases. If someone has been a homemaker for so many years that their likely prospects for earning a decent income have diminished, the court will take that into consideration.

Another similar scenario is the long term unemployed person. The longer they are out of work, the harder it is for them to find a job. Welfare and food stamps propagate poverty by allowing capable people to get their needs met without working.

The point of the programs is to help people meet their needs. We have systemic unemployment. This is not about lazy poor people, as the data show.

Now the Obama Administration is trying to waive the work requirement altogether.

No they're not.
 
The SNAP ads, the welfare work rule "relaxation" announcements and the ObamaCare ads, are not "accidents"; they are intended to remind "the base" that demorats want to "help" the poor (stay poor) but make the republicant's objections seem that they do not care about the "needs of the poor" and want them to work. The horror! How cruel and unusual is that? The sheeple must be assured that taxing "the rich" more is going to make it all work out, just like it did in Greece. Yes he can!
 
Last edited:
The point of the programs is to help people meet their needs.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The advertisements that were attempting to convince people who didn’t want to receive food stamps or didn’t think they qualified was likely a bit more nefarious.


We have systemic unemployment.
That isn’t possible because the great one promised us the unemployment problem would be fixed if we allowed him to spend a trillion dollars of our tax dollars to stimulate the economy and the great one is never wrong.


This is not about lazy poor people, as the data show.
No, it’s about creating lazy poor people who are reliant upon the government teat and reliably vote for the sugar daddy politicians who provide for them by making those greedy rich people pay their fair share.



No they're not.
Yes they are!
Republicans accuse HHS of gutting welfare reform with quiet policy change | Fox News
 
May I suggest that this is simply an example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing?

Most of these many government agencies are run by political appointees whose primary qualifications are which country club they golf at. It's natural that you would have conflict of direction. I assure you that Obama does not personally run all the government oir even have much control if he wanted to.

Such ads are wrong under all circumstances. There is no right or left hand about it.
 
A lesson in irony.

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest number of food stamps and free meals ever.

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

This ends today's lesson.

I've seen this before. If you want to continue on this path... What would the park rangers do if the animals were starving due to let's say, drought? Would the perhaps help the animals out until the drought ended? I think they might.
 
The Gubmint telling the citizens what is available during the biggest collapse of our economy since the Great Depression doesn't seem like a sinister plot to ensnare more folks in the welfare trap. If the Gubmint offered student grants or business help through the TV would the outcry be so large,(right wing?)

Most food stamps (SNAP) goes to the WORKING poor. People who hold one or more jobs but are still don't make enough to be above the qualification bar. Food stamps don't keep people 'hooked' on welfare, they keep families fed while the parents work the jobs our revered 'Job Creators', hallowed be thy name, churn out to replace the better paying ones we no longer have on this side of the ocean.

Stopping the TV spots might mean the USDA figures all that are eligible have signed up so the expense of TV ads can be done away with... instead of being happy an agency is looking to save money once a goal has been achieved some will, well as my grand daddy was want to say..."Some dawgs howl even if the moon ain't up yet"
 
I've seen this before. If you want to continue on this path... What would the park rangers do if the animals were starving due to let's say, drought? Would the perhaps help the animals out until the drought ended? I think they might.

I believe not. At least from what I see, these "animal people" who produce these TV shows always make it a point to NOT help out or assist or interfere with these animals at any time, for any reason, no matter how hard watching them might pull at their heartstrings. Why? Because it is up to the animals to survive. Only the strong survive. If you assist then you are not letting mother nature take its course, as a drought is something naturally occurring, just like forest fires, etc.

Although the post above stated the reason for "do not feed the animals" was funny, it was not right. Park rangers dont want you feeding animals because some of these animals are dangerous to humans and they dont want them comfy around humans. They dont want them to see humans as a source of food. They aren't really talking about feeding the squirrels. They're talking about larger animals.

They wont forget how to get food naturally any more than squirrels or birds in a subdivision forget how to get food naturally with all of the human-inserted bird feeders around.
 
Last edited:
I believe not. At least from what I see, these "animal people" who produce these TV shows always make it a point to NOT help out or assist or interfere with these animals at any time, for any reason, no matter how hard watching them might pull at their heartstrings. Why? Because it is up to the animals to survive. Only the strong survive. If you assist then you are not letting mother nature take its course, as a drought is something naturally occurring, just like forest fires, etc.

Although the post above stated the reason for "do not feed the animals" was funny, it was not right. Park rangers dont want you feeding animals because some of these animals are dangerous to humans and they dont want them comfy around humans. They dont want them to see humans as a source of food. They aren't really talking about feeding the squirrels. They're talking about larger animals.

They wont forget how to get food naturally any more than squirrels or birds in a subdivision forget how to get food naturally with all of the human-inserted bird feeders around.

Most likely you are right. My point should have been, we are not animals. I certainly don't want "only the strong survive" applie to people, especially children.
 
Most likely you are right. My point should have been, we are not animals. I certainly don't want "only the strong survive" applie to people, especially children.

Well, thats just it, we are animals. Absolutely, 100%. While we think we are "above" all other species, mother nature is a cruel girl, she doesn't see us as any different. We have the brains to get ourselves through tough times, but that doesn't make us any different. In fact, as humans, we artificially interfere with nature with drugs, surgeries, etc. I can't say thats a bad thing because I'm alive today because of surgery.

But to say we aren't animals, or children aren't animals, is not true. We are just another species. Our big egos make us feel we are superior, but we aren't. Think about it, without tools where in the food chain would we be? Certainly not at the top as a lion could eat us for lunch. What puts us on top is our brains, our ability to create tools and weapons for hunting and defense.

But this is way the hell off topic. Sorry about that.
 
I've seen this before. If you want to continue on this path... What would the park rangers do if the animals were starving due to let's say, drought? Would the perhaps help the animals out until the drought ended? I think they might.

As a matter of fact, they don't. A few years ago a rancher in southwestern Montana was threatened with jail if he continued to make hay available for starving deer during a particularly harsh winter. His argument that he would rather feed them now so he could hunt them next fall was dismissed by the wannabe lords of creation as contrary to their policy.
 
We are still animals and if we let others take care of us, we forget how to take care of ourselves. I’m pretty sure the courts agree with this because they are always ordering that a spouse must pay alimony to another spouse after a divorce.

Well, thats just it, we are animals. Absolutely, 100%. While we think we are "above" all other species, mother nature is a cruel girl, she doesn't see us as any different. We have the brains to get ourselves through tough times, but that doesn't make us any different. In fact, as humans, we artificially interfere with nature with drugs, surgeries, etc. I can't say thats a bad thing because I'm alive today because of surgery.

But to say we aren't animals, or children aren't animals, is not true. We are just another species. Our big egos make us feel we are superior, but we aren't. Think about it, without tools where in the food chain would we be? Certainly not at the top as a lion could eat us for lunch. What puts us on top is our brains, our ability to create tools and weapons for hunting and defense.

But this is way the hell off topic. Sorry about that.

No, really, continue comparing poor people to animals.
 
No, really, continue comparing poor people to animals.

Did you see the word "poor" in my statement? Are you trying to be sleazy now or does it just come naturally?
 
Did you see the word "poor" in my statement? Are you trying to be sleazy now or does it just come naturally?

Lot of rich people collecting food stamps, are there?
 
That's not why courts grants alimony -- but whatever.

Here's a fact sheet from the USDA:



Can you show that long-term dependency on SNAP is widespread? Obviously, the precipitous rise in SNAP enrollment due to our recent recession would skew that number lower, but this fact sheet references 2006 data, so it predates the rise. Seems that most people are off the program within a year. Perhaps your theories about dependency don't hold up to scrutiny?

welfare-trap.jpg

Welfare benefits have built in fiscal cliffs where you have to make thousands of dollars more to actually benefit from making more money, this decintivizes working to get ahead because you actually do not get ahead until you make much more.

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.co...ap-the-less-fortunate-in-lives-of-dependency/
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom