• 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!

Food-stamp use doubles

"We have met the enemy and he is us".

Shows you the Push by this Administration.....doesn't it? Considering the USDA didn't have these type of ads up under Bush.
 
How did you come to the conclusion that I support Cheap Foreign labor and no minimum wage from my post?

You say that only 17% of those receiving food stamps are men without jobs. What's so bad about them having to earn some of that aid? Are you telling me there is no trash to pick up off the roadways? No betterment projects they can help out on? Do something besides be a drain on all of us!

And how about the ladies? How many of them are sitting at home doing nothing all day? How about they help out the community some by working for some of what they get?

I have no problem with kids, Elderly, Handicap folks getting assistance. Those that can not take care of themselves should get assistance.

Do you honestly think conservatives want to see people needing welfare? That is among the lamest ideas I have seen on this forum. What good would it do for conservatives to put people on the government dole so we can pay for it. I for one would rather people got off their asses and worked for a living. I do understand folks can fall on hard times and sometimes they are so hard they need a hand. To those people I say how can I help. To those that stand around waiting on the next link payment all the while driving around in better cars than most, living in free housing that they tear to bits, and wearing more expensive clothes than most I say do us all a favor and either get a job or off yourself. I am not in favor of cradle to grave generation to generation of welfare queens working the system and leaving less for those that depend on it to survive.

If you see that as me being greedy or heartless well I guess you you got me figured out.

Thank you!!

I totally agree with this post!!:applaud
 
Neither the increase in food stamp recipients nor advertising for new recipients is anything new or particular to the Obama administration.

From FOOD STAMPS: 1932 –1977: From Provisional and Pilot Programs to Permanent Policy


Between 1970 and 1971, when the Hardin reforms were implemented, recipient numbers went from 4.3 million to 9.4 million. By May of 1975, there were more than 19.4 recipients. Many Americans became personally aware of the program as they watched recipients cash in their stamps at grocery stores. Congressional representatives started getting protest letters from constituents who wondered why people with food stamps were sometimes buying better food than they. Newspapers printed articles about fraud and abuse and overly generous eligibility standards. Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, was critical of the program, often citing an “advertisement” that had appeared in Parade Magazine that invited people to apply for food stamps because it was so easy. The ad’s headline stated ‘Taxpayers Making up to $16,000 – Now Eligible’ but its claims were inaccurate. The Ford Administration began to try to cut the food stamp budget.

But, since there has been so much said about the issue of late, the USDA may stop advertising:

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.

Read more: USDA moves to end questionable food stamp ads after criticism | Fox News
 
Neither the increase in food stamp recipients nor advertising for new recipients is anything new or particular to the Obama administration.

From FOOD STAMPS: 1932 –1977: From Provisional and Pilot Programs to Permanent Policy




But, since there has been so much said about the issue of late, the USDA may stop advertising:

Well the Holding a Party concept I would say is new.....as opposed to just advertising. Still under Bush junior Food Stamps was up to 63% now under Obama it over 80%. So not only is His Administration matching Juniors numbers. But is far exceeding it and while the situation gets worse.
 
Well the Holding a Party concept I would say is new.....as opposed to just advertising. Still under Bush junior Food Stamps was up to 63% now under Obama it over 80%. So not only is His Administration matching Juniors numbers. But is far exceeding it and while the situation gets worse.

The party idea is a new twist, perhaps inspired by the "Pampered Chef" parties or something.

and Bush III, AKA Obama, does have a penchant for doubling down on the policies of the past administration, doesn't it?
 
The current customary function when a president is re-elected, is for his/her cabinet to submit their resignations. The president then makes whatever decision to keep or not keep someone in their respective office. The same practice would work here.

First, change the requirements for food stamps based on economic status ONLY If you make less than the current poverty level, you qualify, with special rules for owning any valuable property, have a reasonable saving account or financial worth. In other words, if you can afford to buy your own food, then you do NOT qualify for food stamps. Then, anyone who is currently receiving this benefit, must re-apply for it or it expires within 3 months.

There is nothing more disgusting than watching a food stamp user, get into their Lexus and drive away while chatting on their $500 iPhone.

Give the benefit to those who really need it, and stop the fraud and waste.
 
The current customary function when a president is re-elected, is for his/her cabinet to submit their resignations. The president then makes whatever decision to keep or not keep someone in their respective office. The same practice would work here.

First, change the requirements for food stamps based on economic status ONLY If you make less than the current poverty level, you qualify, with special rules for owning any valuable property, have a reasonable saving account or financial worth. In other words, if you can afford to buy your own food, then you do NOT qualify for food stamps. Then, anyone who is currently receiving this benefit, must re-apply for it or it expires within 3 months.

There is nothing more disgusting than watching a food stamp user, get into their Lexus and drive away while chatting on their $500 iPhone.

Give the benefit to those who really need it, and stop the fraud and waste.

Better to just stop food stamps. It may have been needed during the great depression but certainly not now. People should be helping each other rather than the government using tax dollars with which to bribe the electorate.
 
What sort of government jobs do you have in mind?

And how would that help the private sector?

How about improving our infrastructure? Construction jobs. How about increasing the park rangers and visitors bureaus to national parks? how about increasing the number of Social Security offices and staff to meet the increasing needs of the baby boomers applying? How about creating federal mental health facilities in each state and filling them full of staff?

Where to get the money?

How about closing the 750 overseas bases in 36 countries used to protect American multinational companies from the striking workers? How about stopping the building of obsolete weapons? How about demanding that the weapons built overseas by foreigners for our MIC be done here? How about stopping welfare subsidies to corporations? How about returning to taxes for corporations and individuals to the Eisenhower era?

The money spent in good paying middle class jobs will create a demand for more goods and services and increase the number of private sector jobs. It's been done before. To successful results.
 
The current customary function when a president is re-elected, is for his/her cabinet to submit their resignations. The president then makes whatever decision to keep or not keep someone in their respective office. The same practice would work here.

First, change the requirements for food stamps based on economic status ONLY If you make less than the current poverty level, you qualify, with special rules for owning any valuable property, have a reasonable saving account or financial worth. In other words, if you can afford to buy your own food, then you do NOT qualify for food stamps. Then, anyone who is currently receiving this benefit, must re-apply for it or it expires within 3 months.

There is nothing more disgusting than watching a food stamp user, get into their Lexus and drive away while chatting on their $500 iPhone.

Give the benefit to those who really need it, and stop the fraud and waste.

What do you consider an income below poverty?

How many times have you seen a Lexus outside a food stamp office? Why would they verify for you that the person getting foodstamps own the Lexus? Are you a police of sort?
 
What do you consider an income below poverty?

How many times have you seen a Lexus outside a food stamp office? Why would they verify for you that the person getting foodstamps own the Lexus? Are you a police of sort?

I must confess I have not seen a Lexus outside a food stamp office. Honestly I have not ever seen a food stamp office. But I have seen a food stamp user, get into a lexus and drive away talking on her iphone. I am not the police, I merely described what I have seen. Perhaps she rented it?
 
Last edited:
I must confess I have not seen a Lexus outside a food stamp office. Honestly I have not ever seen a food stamp office. But I have seen a food stamp user, get into a lexus and drive away talking on her iphone. I am not the police, I merely described what I have seen. Perhaps she rented it?

Well, if you don't have a poor family member, count yourself lucky. Many of us do, and we freely loan our cars to them.

I would imagine the "iPhone" you saw was probably a low version that is provided at discount prices to the poor. After all, isn't communicating, calling an ambulance, talking to family something we should all enjoy?

You can turn the person in, if you think there's fraud involved. Why the right seems to think it's okay to observe what they see as a crime without the responsibility of reporting it is beyond me. I have turned in SSDI people whom I have seen pick up extra construction jobs. I thought his disability was for back problems. I found out, his disability was for vision, which was so poor, he worked alone tossing the bricks and cement blocks. Had to be shown the general direction.

BTW, Wal-Mart is the BIGGEST corporate contributor to people on subsidies. Their wages are so poor, Wal-Mart ENCOURAGES its employees to apply for foodstamps and Medicaid. That way, the Walton family has another $100 billion in profits they can enjoy.
 
How about improving our infrastructure?

That might have been a good idea when the country wasn't trillion of dollars in debt, and that debt growing every day. What's happening to all that money? What happened to all those 'shovel ready' jobs that were supposed to be there? Even Obama had to laugh at that joke.

You're talking as though you want good and responsible government that will balance budgets, maintain the infrastructure, and so on, and then elect a wastrel with no experience whatsoever. What can Americans actually expect from someone like Obama? If you don't vote in serious people you won't have serious government. Instead you wanted celebrity government and now complain about the lack of infrastructure.

It's hard to have any sympathy.

Construction jobs. How about increasing the park rangers and visitors bureaus to national parks? how about increasing the number of Social Security offices and staff to meet the increasing needs of the baby boomers applying? How about creating federal mental health facilities in each state and filling them full of staff?

Again, the government is $17,000,000,000,000 in debt and that number is growing every day. What are you going to pay all these people with? When a company is broke is their response to hire more people? That only happened in Obamaworld. It's time to get real.

Where to get the money? Borrow it? Print it?
How about closing the 750 overseas bases in 36 countries used to protect American multinational companies from the striking workers?

They are not used for that purpose but at least you have an idea, albeit a tad unrealistic.

How about stopping the building of obsolete weapons?
Great

How about demanding that the weapons built overseas by foreigners for our MIC be done here?
Perhaps but they may then be more expensive and further debts created.

How about stopping welfare subsidies to corporations?

You call them 'welfare subsidies' but, as you know, corporations are leaving, subsidies or no. At one time America was a great place to invest but today, not so much. Instead you should be asking yourself how to attract more business.

How about returning to taxes for corporations and individuals to the Eisenhower era?

How about spending what they did during the Eisenhower years and diminishing the size of government as well, and returning to the habits of personal responsibilities of the Eisenhower years. The Americans of today are a shadow of what they were during those times so your suggestion is quite impossible. The American character has beome too diminished.

The money spent in good paying middle class jobs will create a demand for more goods and services and increase the number of private sector jobs. It's been done before. To successful results.

The conditions in America today are unique to America today. The family is dying out and personal responsibility along with it. People like Barrack Obama claim "Wall Street", "Rich Bankers" or "Corporations" are the villains when it is actually the American people themselves who are to blame. And that weakness is further demonstrated when they whine and complain, like juveniles, that it is all somebody else's fault.
 
So Conservatives are against minimum wages that allow people to take care of themselves and against programs that alleviate the pain of low wages. It's amazing that "Go **** youself" Conservatism doesn't gain more traction with the voting public.
 
Well, if you don't have a poor family member, count yourself lucky. Many of us do, and we freely loan our cars to them.

I would imagine the "iPhone" you saw was probably a low version that is provided at discount prices to the poor. After all, isn't communicating, calling an ambulance, talking to family something we should all enjoy?

You can turn the person in, if you think there's fraud involved. Why the right seems to think it's okay to observe what they see as a crime without the responsibility of reporting it is beyond me. I have turned in SSDI people whom I have seen pick up extra construction jobs. I thought his disability was for back problems. I found out, his disability was for vision, which was so poor, he worked alone tossing the bricks and cement blocks. Had to be shown the general direction.

BTW, Wal-Mart is the BIGGEST corporate contributor to people on subsidies. Their wages are so poor, Wal-Mart ENCOURAGES its employees to apply for foodstamps and Medicaid. That way, the Walton family has another $100 billion in profits they can enjoy.

Once again you spew BS, toss out impressive sounding numbers based on nothing at all and hope that nobody would dare question them. Walmart annual profits are less than $20 billion, as is the CEO total compensation. In fact, if you paid the Walmart CEO nothing and took that (about $18 million) total annual compensation and divided it equally among all (2 million) Walmart employees that would be a whopping $9/year in extra pay for each of them.

Wal-Mart Stores - Fortune 500 - WMT

Fortune 500 2012 - CEO pay vs. our salaries - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com
 
Last edited:
Well, if you don't have a poor family member, count yourself lucky. Many of us do, and we freely loan our cars to them.

I would imagine the "iPhone" you saw was probably a low version that is provided at discount prices to the poor. After all, isn't communicating, calling an ambulance, talking to family something we should all enjoy?

You can turn the person in, if you think there's fraud involved. Why the right seems to think it's okay to observe what they see as a crime without the responsibility of reporting it is beyond me. I have turned in SSDI people whom I have seen pick up extra construction jobs. I thought his disability was for back problems. I found out, his disability was for vision, which was so poor, he worked alone tossing the bricks and cement blocks. Had to be shown the general direction.

BTW, Wal-Mart is the BIGGEST corporate contributor to people on subsidies. Their wages are so poor, Wal-Mart ENCOURAGES its employees to apply for foodstamps and Medicaid. That way, the Walton family has another $100 billion in profits they can enjoy.

The minimum wage workers at Walmart are so much more oppressed than the minimum wage workers at Target, Kmart, Sears, McDonalds, Lowe's, Home Depot, your local cafe, the company that mows people's lawns, etc. :roll:
 
So Conservatives are against minimum wages that allow people to take care of themselves and against programs that alleviate the pain of low wages. It's amazing that "Go **** youself" Conservatism doesn't gain more traction with the voting public.

The problem stems from people demanding $15/hour to build something then refusing to pay more then $0.50 for it. We (and by we I mean consumers) need to support businesses who are paying decent wages rather than the cheaper businesses who are exploiting the poor around the world.
 
The minimum wage workers at Walmart are so much more oppressed than the minimum wage workers at Target, Kmart, Sears, McDonalds, Lowe's, Home Depot, your local cafe, the company that mows people's lawns, etc. :roll:

Wal-Mart does pay less and offers less benefits than other employers.
 
The activist group Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) said "in 2006 Walmart reports that full-time hourly associates received, on average, $10.11 an hour." It further calculated that working 34 hours per week an employee earns $17,874 per year and claimed that is about twenty percent less than the average retail worker.
 
Wal-Mart does pay less and offers less benefits than other employers.

And that's why anyone with half a brain would focus on building a strategy to get a better job than Wal-Mart, even if they have few other options temporarily.
 
Wal-Mart does pay less and offers less benefits than other employers.

So what. Don't work at walmart if it is not good enough for you. Supply and demand works in the labor market too. One of my cousins started at Kmart at minimum wage and now makes a really good living--why? Well, he did not aspire to stock shelves for 50 years, joined the military, went down range twice, and is now working for the USPS thanks to their preference for vets. Not every employer will provide for every employee's needs their entire lives, nor should they. Sometimes workers need to make an effort beyond settling in and whining.
 
So what. Don't work at walmart if it is not good enough for you. Supply and demand works in the labor market too. One of my cousins started at Kmart at minimum wage and now makes a really good living--why? Well, he did not aspire to stock shelves for 50 years, joined the military, went down range twice, and is now working for the USPS thanks to their preference for vets. Not every employer will provide for every employee's needs their entire lives, nor should they. Sometimes workers need to make an effort beyond settling in and whining.

Options have to exist to move beyond minimum wage. And more and more those options are disappearing. Just look at what your buddy did to move beyond minimum wage. The military is becoming less of an option. They are working to reduce that. And USPS? Do you really believe that is a viable option going forward? They are actively laying off and working on more ways to lay off there as well. The options that existed even 10 years ago are fading today. People do get trapped into these very low end jobs.
 
Options have to exist to move beyond minimum wage. And more and more those options are disappearing. Just look at what your buddy did to move beyond minimum wage. The military is becoming less of an option. They are working to reduce that. And USPS? Do you really believe that is a viable option going forward? They are actively laying off and working on more ways to lay off there as well. The options that existed even 10 years ago are fading today. People do get trapped into these very low end jobs.

Then that is the price they are going to pay.
 
It is much more difficult to earn a living now than it was when I was just starting out.
Having so many earning low wages and making do with part time jobs is a drag on the economy and results in low tax revenues.

But, just exactly what is it that the federal government should or could do about it? That's the real question.
 
The question is neither for ever nor any set time, but need versus opportunity and ability.

Amazing how studies have shown that people living off "the dole" as it were, tend to get back to work at what ever point that free stuff ends isn't it....;)
 
Back
Top Bottom