Give Food Stamp Challenge organizers in Michigan and New Haven, Connecticut some credit.
We'll probably never know whether they figured it out on their own, or perhaps read of other organizers' errors when they were pointed out by syndicated columnist Mona Charen and by yours truly (at NewsBusters here and here; at BizzyBlog here and here). But unlike their comrades in most other cities and states, they have at least framed their Challenge using a correct amount of $35 per person per week ($5 per person per day) based on this table, which was adapted from information available at the USDA's web site (near the bottom at link; the weekly amount is result of dividing by 4.345, the average number of weeks in a month):

From Michigan (HT The Other Club):
State Rep. Andy Coulouris, D-Saginaw, is among state and local officials who this week will be trying to eat on the $5-a-day per-person maximum food stamp benefit. Advocates want to give officials an idea of what it's like for low-income families to buy adequate and nutritious food on such a limited budget.
An article in Connecticut's New Haven Daily Register details the efforts of a family of three accurately attempting to live on $5 per person per day for 5 days.
Actual Food Stamp benefits disbursed are often lower than the amounts listed on the table above, because the program's formulas assume that families should in many cases be able to provide for a portion of their food needs from their own resources. The average benefit per person is apparently $21 per week after taking beneficiaries' available resources into account.
Nevertheless, politicians and others participating in other Food Stamp Challenges around the country, and Old Media reporters covering the Challenges, either haven't caught on to the idea that the $21 amount Challenge participants began trying to get by on in Oregon in April, and elsewhere since then, is simply incorrect -- or they don't care.
In the first paragraph of their story today about how DC politicians Eleanor Holmes Norton and Vincent Gray have taken up the Challenge, the Washington Post's Sue Anne Presley Montes and Nikita Stewart are, uh, totally out to lunch:
Norton, Gray Get a Taste of Lean Times
Officials See Just How Little the Average Allocation of $21 a Week Buys Someone
For seven days, they are trying to do what the average food stamp recipient in the United States must do routinely: live on a mere $21 a week in food. Already, the latest participants in the "Food Stamp Challenge" are hungry and humbled.
Sorry, Sue Anne and Nikita. That is flat-out wrong.
If they aren't getting it right in Washington, it shouldn't be too surprising that Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas isn't either. She too is taking up the Challenge at the bogus $21 weekly level (second-last paragraph at link -- "$1 per meal, per day").
The Denver Post's coverage failed what should be called the Food Stamp Math Challenge (or is it the Incoherence Challenge?):
Lucia Guzman stalked the aisles of Safeway, comparing various peanut butters and types of beans. She carefully tallied the cost of the items in her basket on a small pad of paper.
Guzman, executive director of the Mayor's Office for Human Rights and Community Relations, and other city officials agreed to live on food-stamp rations for two days or a week - roughly $3 a day, or $25 per person per week.
Huh? How many layers of fact-checking did that one get through?
Of course, whether $35 per person per week (or the smaller amounts per person as family size increases noted above) is enough, or whether the formulas used for determining available resources are appropriate, are legitimate topics for debate. For example, the Thrifty Food Plan (click on the most recent month available at the link to see a PDF of the plan) identifies costs per person that are often within the ranges of the table above (sometimes with lots of room to spare), but in some cases exceed the table amounts by as much as 15% - 20% or so. Perhaps making the Maximum Allotments (before taking available resources into account) exactly match the Thrifty Table would make sense, and would act as an automatic escalator or de-escalator as food costs change. But it would seem that keeping the Plan's table from turning into a political football could then easily become a "challenge" of a different sort.
Regardless, what is out of bounds, absent contrary evidence, is incorrectly framing the debate by claiming that the poor "live on" (and only have available resources to pay for) $21 worth of food a week, as the Washington Post article and so many other Old Media reporters continue to claim.
Cross-posted, with additional updates, at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters













Comments Policy
OMG can you say SUPPLEMENT?
June 8, 2007 - 08:31 ET by motherbeltOMG can you say SUPPLEMENT??????????
Food stamps are meant to supplement the person's own resources, not supply the whole amount of food for the week, forcryinoutloud!!!!
Its just like Social Security. It was never meant to be a person's whole income after retirement. But every time you turn around someone who did zero planning for his retirement is whining about how hard it is to live on the XXX dollars he gets for SS.
I used to own a small apt hou
June 8, 2007 - 08:42 ET by Mica the MagnificentI used to own a small apt house in upstate New York and my tenants were mostly young people on welfare. They had certain things in common:
They were all on drugs.
They had no money but had at least 1 large dog to feed.
They had no intention of working . . ever!
They all had at least 2 kids.
They were all unmarried.
- - We are very generous to the poor, and ask nothing from them in return.
The dozens I had to deal with, are poor by choice.
<sarc> Mica, you hatemo
June 8, 2007 - 09:57 ET by Airforce_5_O<sarc> Mica, you hatemogering slum lord! How dare you!<sarc>
Sorry I had to do that.
I understand, Airforce. I act
June 8, 2007 - 12:46 ET by Mica the MagnificentI understand, Airforce. I actually believed at one time that poor people were just like the rest of us, only temporarily down on their luck.
But they educated me, and turned me into a hatemongering ex-slum lord that bites!
Where's your scarf? - - Gatekeeper at Islamofacist heaven speaking to a successful female suicide bomber
not supply the whole amount
June 8, 2007 - 10:01 ET by Dave in Texasnot supply the whole amount of food for the week
Actually, I could do $5 a day with one arm tied behind my back. I'm pretty close to that now. And I'm not talking about nothing but ramen and macaroni and cheese, I eat vegetables, fruits, milk, bread, etc.. Just don't eat out, cook everything yourself, buy in bulk, look for things on sale, and avoid the expensive stuff.
I'm sure lots of people cou
June 8, 2007 - 15:03 ET by motherbeltI'm sure lots of people could, Dave. The point is that no on HAS TO. The above experiment assumes that there is NO other money for food, other than the food stamps. That is simply not true. For one thing, there is the WIC program, which provides milk, cereal, eggs, butter and I'm not sure what else for pregnant women and children. I had a friend once who was on WIC and she used to give some of the stuff to the Church's food pantry, because they actually couldn't eat it all.
I read somewhere that when we figure who lives in "poverty", assistance is not added in. Therefore, food stamps are not counted. Neither are the free medical care from Medicaid, the housing subsidies, and other various items. So someone who is supposedly living at "poverty level" of $15,000 a year for a family of four, or whatever it is, are actually getting around $35,000 when you add in all the benefits. Also, those benefits are usually offered to families earning up to 200% of the poverty-level income. Not too shabby, I think.
Let's not forget all the othe
June 8, 2007 - 09:14 ET by dscottLet's not forget all the other benefits they qualify for when they get food stamps: free housing or heavily subsidized (HOC), free medical care (Medicaid), and over $15,000 a year in cash (AFDC). Why would a person with no job skills working $8/hr want to do anything else but live off the government? When you look at the Rector Report and figure all their benefits add up to around $30K a year, all of which is tax free btw, you would have to earn around $15/hr just to make the $30k. And then add the yearly bonus of EIC every April 15th, why work? With Dems offering such goodies to the poor, who would want to be a Republican? Now multiple this by all the illegals Dems want to give legal status.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Charen again
June 8, 2007 - 10:14 ET by Tom BlumerFrom Charen's column -- you missed a couple:
But you're incorrect on AFDC. It was true before 1996, but there are less than 2 million welfare families and less than 5 million recipients now vs. about 4.5 million and 12 million before Welfare Reform. Unfortunately, there are over 26.7 million receiving Food Stamps at a total cost (including admin) of $33 billion per year.
Overall though, spending on "poverty programs" continues to skyrocket.
Charen adds
June 8, 2007 - 10:18 ET by Cool ArrowSo what you're saying here is; A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon we're talking about some real money.
Thanks for enlighting me on AFDC
June 8, 2007 - 15:16 ET by dscottThanks for enlighting me on AFDC.
Question: Is there a differential paid to Food Stamp recipients to compensate for high cost areas like New York City??? I seem to think there is.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Differential
June 8, 2007 - 15:44 ET by Tom BlumerThe differential comes about because the formula for determining available resources in effect takes local conditions (housing costs, etc.) into account, which is why one article I came across said the monthly benefit per person averages as low as $95 in certain states and as high as $150 or so (IIRC) in others.
families should in many cases
June 8, 2007 - 09:16 ET by Cool Arrowfamilies should in many cases be able to provide for a portion of their food needs from their own resources.
Well, that's sure nice to know. So the government is buying a pack of cigarettes per day for each welfare recipient.
This franken welfare state is disgusting. I'll bet LBJ has a bigscreen seated at the right hoof of beelzebub just to watch the magnificant intricacies of his perpetual bondage machine.
I'm tired of this "hunger in America" smokescreen. It's as though poverty should be comfortable. It ain't! We seem to confuse 'hunger' with 'starvation' and believe we got a regular Sudan on our hands.
Nothing like a bunch of Liberals to rob people of their drive to succeed. Why don't we just raise the money amount to $20 a day. Could we possibly do more to encourage destructive behavior in America. Price of crack goes up, pimps and dealers double up and it's samo' samo'.
If you went to bed starving as a kid, raise your hand. Didn't think so.
Who went to bed hungry? That's the diff.
Lysdexics Untie!
Charen
June 8, 2007 - 09:26 ET by Tom BlumerCharen makes this point in her column:
Tom,I remember watching cove
June 8, 2007 - 11:44 ET by Dave RTom,
I remember watching coverage of the Katrina aftermath, and I recall thinking how obese most of those people were. It wasn't just the adults, either, but the children, as well.
Where's The Fence, George?
And you would dare offer them
June 8, 2007 - 11:47 ET by Sergeant ROCKAnd you would dare offer them a MRE??? They deserve better!
LOL.Where's The Fence, George
June 8, 2007 - 13:14 ET by Dave RLOL.
Where's The Fence, George?
Of course it is. The only f
June 8, 2007 - 13:17 ET by LeonOf course it is. The only food you can afford if you're poor is FAST FOOD.
Eating healthy is expensive.
"Eating healthy is exp
June 8, 2007 - 13:21 ET by MightyMouth"Eating healthy is expensive."
Not when you consider the consequences of an unhealthy diet. But then the tax payers have to handle that cost too, don't they?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
"But then the tax paye
June 8, 2007 - 13:27 ET by sarcasmo"But then the tax payers have to handle that cost too, don't they?"
And this is precisely the control-freakery producing danger of all tax-funded health care plans. I can't see why small-government people like me aren't allowed into the healthcare debate, but clearly we're not. For example, the ONLY doctor in the Republican "debate" was just ignored regarding health care, to 0 fanfare here or in the "mainstream" media... But as I've coined it already, this is "The YouTube Election," so the word's getting-out IN SPITE OF, not because of, the news media!
JMR
No it isn't. Eating smart i
June 8, 2007 - 13:22 ET by sarcasmoNo it isn't. Eating smart is actually pretty cheap, especially compared to fast food. I regularly frequent a deli that gives me FREE BEER to come there, and a GOOD sandwich made of Boar's Head meats and cheeses costs little if any more than the Mickey-D's a rock-throw away, not counting the free beer...Fast food is expensive, especially compared to REALLY cheap stuff like ramen noodles.
JMR
Nonsense, Leon
June 8, 2007 - 13:24 ET by RJThat's nonsense, Leon. A healthy diet doesn't have to be expensive.
It takes effort to cook a mea
June 8, 2007 - 13:28 ET by Mica the MagnificentIt takes effort to cook a meal. That is something the poor seriously lack. That's what makes them poor, Leon! Geez!
Give a man a fish and he eats forever (but cook it for him first) - - - Probably something Leon believes in
Give a man a fish
June 8, 2007 - 13:31 ET by Cool ArrowGive a man a fish and he'll be answering questions about a hoe.
You said 'hoe.' I think you s
June 8, 2007 - 13:33 ET by Mica the MagnificentYou said 'hoe.'
I think you should have someone fire you!
Different hoe, of course
June 8, 2007 - 13:39 ET by Cool Arrowahem, I was referring to the Puritan method of planting corn, of course.
You know, how the Indians taught them to dig a hole, put a fish and a kernel of corn in it and let it grow.
Certainly you don't think I meant... Oh this is dreadful. I would never...
Please don't fire me Mr. Sharpton.
You mean: Take away the fis
June 8, 2007 - 13:38 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou mean: Take away the fish from the man who caught it and give it to the man who didn't.
Hey, laziness is not entirely
June 8, 2007 - 13:42 ET by dscottHey, laziness is not entirely a bad thing. So even if one didn't have the facilities to cook with a proper stove and range never mind the skill or the inclination to prepare a meal, there is no excuse to starve in this country. It's almost too easy to get through life without even trying because too many people are too willing to wear their self agrandizement on their sleeves.
Next time you go to the store, go to the frozen food section look at the microwave foods section for breakfast, lunch and dinner. You can buy most prepared single serving dinners for less than $2 each and cheaper if on sale. Look at Lean Cusine, Healthy Choice and Heart Smart.
BTW- there is no reason why it has to be 3 meals a day either, I've done 2 meals a day for months on end when the situation warranted it.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
dscott,You ever live in New Y
June 8, 2007 - 13:47 ET by Leondscott,
You ever live in New York City on a minimum wage? 10,000 bucks a year is going to make it tough to eat.
By the way, Lean Cuisine is between $3 -5.
I've never seen a prepared dinner for under $2.
Leon, baby! I lived in Queens
June 8, 2007 - 13:54 ET by Mica the MagnificentLeon, baby! I lived in Queens for 23 years, but that is beside the point.
Your assumption is that WE should do something because Mr. or Mrs. Lardass can't make it on the money they have!
Bolshoi!
You should be asking what THEY are doing to improve their situation.
C'mon, Leon. You're really my insane Uncle Steven messing with me, right?
What are you talking about?
June 8, 2007 - 13:58 ET by LeonWhat are you talking about? Your post has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
I never said WE should do anything about it, I merely pointed out the situation.
Poor areas have lots of fast food available = Poor people suffer from high rates of obesity = most likely, this stems from eating fast food
Now, explain to me how your post is relevant at all. What does improving their situation have to do with anything? This is not a discussion about social welfare.
Read before you open your mouth.
"Lean Cuisine?"
June 8, 2007 - 14:00 ET by RJ"Lean Cuisine?" That's still expensive fast food. Where is it written that prepared foods are a requirement or a right for the poor?
RJ,I have no idea what you're
June 8, 2007 - 14:03 ET by LeonRJ,
I have no idea what you're talking about. I was simply pointing out to dscott that his lean cuisine pricing was inaccurate.
And, apparently, that you'v
June 8, 2007 - 14:09 ET by sarcasmoAnd, apparently, that you've never seen "Top Ramen."
JMR
read before you open your mouth, Leon
June 8, 2007 - 14:22 ET by RJ"I have no idea what you're talking about." That's a cheap subterfuge you use quite a bit, Leon. Either you're a) not paying attention b) not very bright or c) lying.
"Read before you open your mouth".....isn't that what you said to Mica?
Just to refresh your memory, we're discussing your silly theory that the poor can only afford fast food. In fact, you referred to how difficult it is to afford to eat, immediately before your Lean Cuisine comment. See? Not so hard, when you pay attention..... ;^>
No, I haven't lived in NYC, v
June 8, 2007 - 14:00 ET by dscottNo, I haven't lived in NYC, visited it, but definitely wouldn't want to live there. Yes, it is expensive there, that's why living in the outlying areas is preferred by many. Being from the NYC area, I can understand why you haven't see Lean Cuisine under $2, but I have frequently living here in Florida.
However, that's besides the point, if an area is too expensive to live in, you move to where it isn't, it's called choice/freedom. With freedom comes responsibility. It is the individual's responsibility, not the government's, to choose where you live sustainably. This is not Europe where people live their entire lives in one city, this is America where people up and move on average every three years. If you live in Michigan and Mississippi where there is high unemployment, you can move to where the jobs are, if the illegals can do this over thousands of miles for a less than minimum wage job, no one in this country has an excuse not to move themselves.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Meh, it's just my theory. I
June 8, 2007 - 13:43 ET by LeonMeh, it's just my theory. I've lived in some frighteningly poor areas and it always seems to me that they have an overabundance of fast food joints in those places. I hypothesized that this happened b/c fast food is cheap. Ever been to KFC? You can feed an entire family for 10 bucks.
I would further argue that Fast Food is responsible for nearly 100% (there's like .0003% genetic responsibility - my neighbor's kid, for instance, has a disorder where he's always hungry (Prader-Willi Syndrome), so he eats a lot, so he's overweight) of our obesity problem in America, which is out of control.
Maybeso, leon
June 8, 2007 - 13:54 ET by RJUnhealthy, yes, Leon. I'm no fan of fast food...hardly ever eat it....haven't had a french fry in over 20 years....or one of their sodas in 30.
But you said the only food the poor can afford is fast food, and that's patently untrue.
RJ, your sobriety is commenda
June 8, 2007 - 14:04 ET by dscottRJ, your sobriety is commendable, you're a better person than I. However, I think I would be deprived if I didn't get soda or fries more than once year.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Almost unAmerican
June 8, 2007 - 18:33 ET by RJI know. It's almost unAmerican, isn't it? (i.e. the new "apple pie")
You can feed an entire fami
June 8, 2007 - 15:10 ET by motherbeltYou can feed an entire family for 10 bucks. - Leon
And for that ten bucks, you could buy a couple of whole chickens, potatoes or rice, some fresh or frozen vegetables, and ROAST the chicken instead of frying it, and make a healthier meal. But that takes some effort.
And fast food restaurants tend to spring up where the owners know they will be successful. So they do their demographics. And if it ends up that their studies show low-income areas are profitable, that's where they'll build.
I just showed above that one can make a healthy meal for the same money. So whose fault is it if low-income earners buy more fast food?
And, while expensive IMO, o
June 8, 2007 - 15:18 ET by sarcasmoAnd, while expensive IMO, on the slightly good news for individual responsibility front, Subways exist all over the USA. They stay in business serving mostly relatively-healthy fast food. Subway even spreads ads all over TV which literally made a formerly-fat guy a star. The health problems of poor people should NOT be the responsibility of taxpayers, but they are.
JMR
Your theory is flawed to the
June 8, 2007 - 16:35 ET by TheDeuceYour theory is flawed to the core.
First, fast food joints place themselves in densely-populated areas. It's all about being close to as many people as you can be. Some fast food restaurants aer placed in areas where lots of people work, too. Again, densely-populated...easy access...fast...
Second, ANYONE can feed an 'entire family' of four for well under $10 dollars. A little sauce, some noodles, even throw some meat in there...or, pack of chicken thighs/legs, cans of corn and green beans...I could do this all day.
Third, you actually took the time to type 'Fast Food is responsible for nearly 100%' for 'our' obesity problem. Guess what? You are simply excusing the inherent laziness that's required by parents that allow their families to eat too much fast food. Food doesn't force people to be fat. People eat too much food in general without getting the proper amount of exersize. It ain't Ronald McDonald's fault that the fat ass doesn't take a walk now and then between Big Macs.
Umm, Leon, the extra value me
June 8, 2007 - 13:25 ET by dscottUmm, Leon, the extra value meal at McDs is between $5 & $6, which is one of the cheapest fast food meals you can buy except on specials like the 5 for $5 deal. Even if you just bought the hamburger you are still paying between $1 & $2 for that. Eating out even at a fast food joint is more expensive than going to a grocery store. We are not buying your line. Heck, for lunch I take the microwave meals for $2 or less on sale instead of going out to lunch for $5+, and the microwave meals are healthier for you than the fast food.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Neon Leon is talking out of
June 8, 2007 - 13:30 ET by Sergeant ROCKNeon Leon is talking out of his @ss. As you accurately point out in your example, processed or prepared foods are generally more expensive. Besides, what did poor people do before the advent of fast food? Eat cake? Or were there no poor people before McDonalds? Or..? I give up...
Eating healthy can be done with this budget
June 8, 2007 - 16:03 ET by Bean97Eating healthy can be done with this budget. I've been following a blog to that effect:
http://www.rebeccablood.net/thriftyo/2007/04/the_organic_thrifty_food_plan_1.html
Check out her archives. She does have skill in the kitchen and time to prepare, but I think someone already mentioned it's all about the effort. You gotta be willing to put in some effort.
Food stamps do not pay for
June 8, 2007 - 09:27 ET by WiggyFood stamps do not pay for cigarettes. There are many things that food stamps do not pay for. The fact is that a great many people who receive them actually need them and do not abuse the system.
Wiggy, Wiggy, Wiggy
June 8, 2007 - 09:34 ET by Cool ArrowThen you are stating for a certainty that food stamp recipients don't smoke. The fact that tobacco isn't bought with those exact dollars is either disengenuous ('lying' definition offered just in case you really do fall into the alternative) or stupid.
You are obviously ignorant
June 8, 2007 - 10:45 ET by WiggyYou are obviously ignorant about food stamps. The recipient does not receive the traditional stamps anymore. They receive a debit card. The system itself will not allow the person to purchase cigarettes, alcohol and other things. So, no the money is not going to tobacco products. That does however free up their own money for alcohol and tobacco, which I think is wrong, but what are you going to do?
While I personally think that food stamp recipients ought to be drug tested randomly, there are people out there who definitely need them.
And don't call me a liar when you are the one who is ignorant of the program. If you have a better answer, then run for public office and change the program.
Wiggy's back. Watch this
June 8, 2007 - 10:55 ET by Cool ArrowOK, Wiggy. I'm going to type this real slow so you can understand it.
If you get $5 for working and $5 credit on your (food stamp, food card) the $5 you got from working is now freed up to buy beer or cigarettes. I'm sorry you feel you must feign stupidity to avoid your disengenuousness.
Now, was that typed slow enough?
Lysdexics Untie!
Wigged-out can't bring himsel
June 8, 2007 - 10:59 ET by Sergeant ROCKWigged-out can't bring himself to admit that there's rampant fraud and abuse in these social programs. As long as you can justify a need, however small, there's no need to get wrapped around the axle over such things.
Look asshat, when did I say
June 8, 2007 - 15:33 ET by WiggyLook asshat, when did I say there was not rampant fraud? I know that you buffoon. There are however people who DO NOT defraud the system. Give them some slack
Slack? For what?
June 9, 2007 - 07:34 ET by UnsaneGive them some slack? Hell no! Who is paying for MY groceries? I am, and I alone, because I go out and work and make sound decisions with my money out of my own freewill (gasp!)! You know, the way it works in the Real World?
Maybe if we stopped stealing from the successful to reward failures, and stopped paying poor people to BE poor as you insist we do (h/t to Friedman), there'd be fewer OF them.
THIRTEEN DOWN, THREE TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)
You are a phucking moron. Y
June 8, 2007 - 15:36 ET by WiggySo what do you want to do to them? Do you want to take away their foodstamps? Do you want to say "hey, we will give you food stamps, but you cannot smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol"?
That would be more government intrusion into people's lives, which is what I thought this site was against. Guess I was wrong.
Do you want to take away thei
June 8, 2007 - 16:01 ET by dscottDo you want to take away their foodstamps?
Yes, end government intrusion into people's daily lives by not enabling continual poor choices. We have had more than enough time since the 1960s to see this program doesn't work along with the rest of them. If you are a Libertarian, you would be demanding an end to these programs all together. As a Republican, I too demand an end to government handouts that only enable people to make more poor choices. Unlike the Libertarians, we Republicans will tolerate some handouts for a very short period of time for those people who are "down on their luck", but bad luck doesn't last for years on end.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
We all know their aren't phys
June 8, 2007 - 11:02 ET by dscottWe all know their aren't physical food stamps anymore, it's a generic term that has carried over.
So you admit they use their "own" money for alcohol and tobacco. And pray tell where did they get their "own" money??? Not from working. So bottom line is you admit that the Food Stamp program subsidizes their inappropriate habits by freeing up money that would have ordinarily been spent on food staples.
Then you say "but what are you going to do?" Shouldn't that be obvious? So instead of calling us ignorant, how about you tell your fellow libs to stop enabling bad behavior? "Most" people aren't poor by accident as though they had absolutely nothing to do with their situation. All choices have consequences, choose wisely. Life is not an accident waiting to happen, life is what you chose it to be, live deliberately. When you live life as a victim, that means you have no choices. Half of the solution to any problem is recognizing the problem exists, you liberals not only don't recognize the source of your problems but actually deny they exist.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Enabling bad behavior is what
June 8, 2007 - 11:06 ET by Sergeant ROCKEnabling bad behavior is what liberalism is all about. And there should be no consequences for that behavior - that would be just plain mean!
The worst and most infuriatin
June 8, 2007 - 11:25 ET by dscottThe worst and most infuriating part is they justify this foolishness by proclaiming they are doing this for the children! Does it not even occur to them that placing children in the hands of irresponsible role models perpetuates the problems? Why else do we have generational welfare (generic for government handouts) recipients? The reason why the war on poverty was never won is due to the enabling role model of failure.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
So, one must ask liberals: Wh
June 8, 2007 - 11:31 ET by Sergeant ROCKSo, one must ask liberals: What is your exit strategy for the War on Poverty?
Wiggy,,not sure if you are aw
June 8, 2007 - 11:06 ET by bassndudeWiggy,,not sure if you are aware of this or not, but there are a great many that abuse the food stamp system. They sell the food stamps for cash, about 50% of their face value, buy alcohol, tobacco, drugs and other such things. Anyone that dosent know that 90% of the drug users are also food stamp users either has their head burried in the sand or is to ignorant to comprehend the subjects discussed on this site.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass,I've lost count of the n
June 8, 2007 - 11:50 ET by Dave Rbass,
I've lost count of the number of times I have been in the checkout line and seen obviously well-fed people (okay, fat-asses) purchasing high-dollar meats and such, using their little taxpayer-supplied debit cards and then go out to the parking lot and load said booty into the trunk of a brand new automobile-often times witht the dealer sticker still affixed to the window.
Never had one of them turn around and say thanks, either.
Where's The Fence, George?
Im with ya Dave.Save a SeAL,
June 8, 2007 - 12:53 ET by bassndudeIm with ya Dave.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Dave, per ounce cost of mea
June 8, 2007 - 13:01 ET by sarcasmoDave, per ounce cost of meat is cheaper on buying an entire filet mignon (much less other cuts) than buying a variety of pre-cooked meats. (And with 24 hours to marinate it and enough hot charcoal, there's nothing I can cook better than a fat round tender piece of beef!) As with sneaker-prices, I'm amazed as an amateur economist at the choices made by some poor people. It's as though they want to be poor...
JMR
sarc,Agreed. It just frosts m
June 8, 2007 - 13:19 ET by Dave Rsarc,
Agreed. It just frosts me that I am being forced to pay for their food, when they are clearly capable of covering that expense for themselves.
Where's The Fence, George?
Of course I know that. My
June 8, 2007 - 15:44 ET by WiggyOf course I know that. My stupid ex-wife defrauded the welfare system and the damn IRS snagged my tax returns for 15 years. They would not prosecute her because they said "it wasn't worth their time."
I know another woman who defrauded Medi-Cal (I think that is what they call it) to have them pay for the birth of her baby. She and her husband worked. The problem is her husband worked for his father at their business and got paid under the table so that they could get Medi-cal to pay for the child. You see, the place she worked was so small they did not offer health insurance. Rather than paying for it themselves, they defrauded Medi-Cal. I reported them three separate times. NOTHING happened.
Of course I know there is rampant fraud in social services. I have seen it myself. If the government could get it under control, there would be more than enough money for the people who really need it.
My oldest son and his wife are on food stamps. No, he does not do drugs. Yes, both of them smoke and it does bother me. Both of them work, but without high school diplomas, you are only going to get a menial crap job. So, they have food stamps to help them out.
At least with the debit card system, there is 'less' fraud. Probably not much less, but there is less.
I have done my part trying to report fraud in social services programs. THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN! But that is no reason to deny the services for those that honestly need the help. My son will NOT be on food stamps much longer. He got a better job and that should disqualify him. They did need the help though.
Have you ever thought that th
June 9, 2007 - 07:37 ET by UnsaneHave you ever thought that the government has absolutely no business being a charity?
If you heart is endlessly hemmorhaging over the hungry, why don't you donate your time to a soup kitchen, or give some food to a food bank? Nah. You'd rather have them parasitically suck the government tit, because government is supposed to "help people".
THIRTEEN DOWN, THREE TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)
Money is fungible. The mo
June 8, 2007 - 15:15 ET by motherbeltMoney is fungible. The money that would have bought food if not for food stamps now gets spent on cigarettes.
Total Dependency!
June 8, 2007 - 09:23 ET by ChasvsBut you miss the goal of the Democrats! They need these people to be totally dependent on them so they will continue to vote for them. Once the food stamp rate is sufficient to sustain these slaves to the Democrat party, they won't need to work at all and the Dems will have a permanent slave class that will ensure their continued re-election! Why work when voting for the Dems gets you a living subsistence?
Yeah, Star Parker wrote a boo
June 8, 2007 - 09:33 ET by Sergeant ROCKYeah, Star Parker wrote a book about it: Uncle Sam's Plantation
Didn't miss the goal at all
June 8, 2007 - 09:41 ET by Cool ArrowThere's a reason LBJ has such a prominent seat at the fire. He and his pals had a pretty good feel for what government entitlements could do. The fact that the bondage is so perpetually renewing may have surpassed their dreams somewhat, but pure and simple, they were buying votes with my money even before I was old enough to have a say about it.
Man, with $5/day back in co
June 8, 2007 - 09:29 ET by sarcasmoMan, with $5/day back in college, I could have an egg and maybe toss in some scallions and/or a slice of cheap lunchmeat of some sort in my TopRamen for both dinner & supper, with enough left-over cold for breakfast in the morning. And these days I'd love to eat all the carbs I want like I did back then, but with a mostly-sedentary lifestyle I'd quickly get very fat. Mmmmmm...Ramen.....
JMR
Sarc, did you ever sell pla
June 8, 2007 - 09:38 ET by MightyMouthSarc, did you ever sell plasma to get enough money to get by? I did, and believe me, It's a truly humbling experience selling your own bodily fluids to make ends meet!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
College never got quite tha
June 8, 2007 - 09:41 ET by sarcasmoCollege never got quite that bad, but I do recall considering the sale of another body fluid...(Glad I didn't sell -- no kids to track me down!)
JMR
Ha, maybe I should have loo
June 8, 2007 - 09:48 ET by MightyMouthHa, maybe I should have looked into that avenue of compensation. At least I could have gone more than once a week! :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
How can you be so sure they w
June 8, 2007 - 10:21 ET by kathleenirishHow can you be so sure they would have taken 'it', sarc? They do supposedly have a screening process, you know!
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
kathleen
June 8, 2007 - 10:25 ET by Cool ArrowDifferent strokes for different folks, I guess.
Especially in Sarc's case.
June 8, 2007 - 10:29 ET by kathleenirishEspecially in Sarc's case. Hahahaha.
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
Situation well in hand
June 8, 2007 - 10:32 ET by Cool ArrowI think Pink has a top 10 song about it.
I saw a few of the guys who
June 8, 2007 - 10:38 ET by sarcasmoI saw a few of the guys who made it through their "screening." It's safe to say I'd have sold to these people with 0 issues, had I been willing. And it was $85 per "sample."
JMR
Thanks sarc
June 8, 2007 - 10:44 ET by Cool ArrowLikely we are all the better for your restraint. JK
Don't you feel better knowing "You always squirt the one you love"
Socialism and Bible agree, fo
June 8, 2007 - 09:47 ET by vrwc13Socialism and Bible agree, for once.....
Food stamps are a temporary aid, not meant to be a lifestyle.
Temporary? Not according to l
June 8, 2007 - 09:52 ET by Sergeant ROCKTemporary? Not according to liberals.
"Food stamps are a tem
June 8, 2007 - 09:53 ET by MightyMouth"Food stamps are a temporary aid, not meant to be a lifestyle."
Very true, one reason I am proud to have never been on them. Not that I would be too proud to accept assistance if it were really needed. Still, it's not the job of government (or at least shouldn't be) to provide for the poor. That should be the "responsibility" of Charity.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Charity
June 8, 2007 - 10:06 ET by Cool ArrowDid you ever give something, help, food, money, shelter, to another human being? There is a good feeling that comes with it.
But when the money you would normally share with the needy disappears into Robert Byrd's pocket before you have a chance to earmark it, all that fulfillment is stolen from you.
Who the hell gets any fulfillment out of the misplaced benevolence of our government? Only those who have bought the votes, dignity, and character of those they shower with my money.
It reminds me very much of Pacman Jones scattering $100 bills on the titty bar dance floor and getting mad when the dancers pick them up before they have satisfied him with their "adoration'.
Well, Liberals are Pacman Jones.
RO, regarding giving to cha
June 8, 2007 - 10:41 ET by MightyMouthRO, regarding giving to charity: I am very cautious about which "charity" I give to. One (among many) criteria is that it must use no more than 5% of donations for "administrative" purposes (including advertising!). I'm not ready to help pay the porsche payment of a "charity" director so that the beneficiaries of the charity can get pennies on the dollar! It's just sad that I as a taxpayer, I don't have the same right to determine who my tax "donation" goes to!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I used to donate to the she
June 8, 2007 - 10:47 ET by The Wicked ConservativeI used to donate to the sheriffs association that calls around 3-4 times a year. Then I finally had enough sense to ask what portion of my donation actually went to the police. IT WAS 17.5%!!! That's it! And the jerk had the gaul to try and convince me that the admin costs were that great and they were doing someone a favor!!!
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
Yo Wicked
June 8, 2007 - 10:57 ET by Cool ArrowHere in Texas, they don't even have to be associated with the Law enforcement agency they claim to promote.