43 Million Americans on Food Stamps?

[SkinnyDevil]

I see no real easy way out of the Charity trap other than being able to play the system for what you can get out of it

I disagree.....but before I go on, I need to make clear that I am not personally attacking you - I am addressing multiple posters who see "gaming the system" as a functional alternative. That said....

First, no one said getting out of any trap is easy, so "easy" isn't a prerequisite to escaping the trap.

Second, I see no shame in doing what needs to be done to take care of your family. But conversely, I see no pride in taking regular hand-outs from Big Brother.

Third, government is incredibly inefficient. Your productivity is taxed (income tax), and that is given to various departments. The foodstamp office soaks up 90 cents on every dollar in administrative costs. Only 10 cents actually goes to families in the form of financial assistance.

If those figures belonged to a private charity (United Way, Salvation Army, Red Cross, Good Will, YMCA, American Cancer Society, etc), there would be public outrage, boycotts would ensue, top dogs would be fired.

Fourth, achieving excellence in what we do & caring for our families (a goal of all men), cannot be done to its fullest extent while we allow an external force to rob us....or worse, willingly participate in the system. It has been said several times that gaming the system is right & that there is no incentive to work harder to make more because losing hand-outs (& possibly falling into a higher tax bracket) just evens things out. "Why bother to work harder for the same thing?"

I disagree with this assumption. There is more to the pay-off than the dollar figure at the end of the day. Keep things as they are, and they'll likely be there tomorrow, next week, next year, 5 years hence....it never changes.

Drop the hand-outs (even at a loss) and you stand on your feet with pride stemming from the knowledge that you have provided for your family and that you are on your way UP. Nothing will stay the same, and you owe nothing to anybody.

My personal take - I don't believe in federal level governmental assistance of any kind. Not to the rich, not to the poor.

[ys]

handouts of any kind do not solve the problem.

there is a hungry man, you give him a fish, he eats the fish, then he gets hungry again, problem continues.
instead, give him a fishing rod, so he can feed himself now.  problem solved.

[miles]

handouts of any kind do not solve the problem.

there is a hungry man, you give him a fish, he eats the fish, then he gets hungry again, problem continues.
instead, give him a fishing rod, so he can feed himself now.  problem solved.

But in these countries there is nowhere for them to fish, the governments have made it so. That's why the government needs to give them fish, or they would revolt.

[KD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhAx8WzNJT0

[SkinnyDevil]

But in these countries there is nowhere for them to fish, the governments have made it so. That's why the government needs to give them fish, or they would revolt.

43 million AMERICANS on food stamps. America is FULL of fish, and plenty of places to fish.

[turkish]

43 million AMERICANS on food stamps. America is FULL of fish, and plenty of places to fish.

is most of this stamp food money is spent on junk food (corn, canned, cured meat.....).

it could a way to create consumers for junk food (which already is subsidized by tax payers)

[sabertooth]

America is full of people who still catch and eat fish as well as hunt wild game, they are the hillbillies who don't have the internet so you would never know they existed. They are out there, and there is a substantial number of them, but from what I can tell their society is crumpling( I am not being funny or grandiose in any respect) The hill people in Kentucky have been stricken with a disease of addiction to prescription pills and many of the young people are so doped up they cant care for themselves and the charity foods they get in Appalachia are not nourishing children proper. They are a frail shadow of the people their grand pearents were. I am sure that SD knows about the problems I speak of. There is an epidemic that is taking its toll in way that aren't being acknowledged. I know there is a majority of adults who get some kind of government assistance are some kind of addict, whether its the geriatric with their nerve pills, or some hillbilly with inexplicable back pain(who happens to have a doctor in Florida), its these people who are the biggist burden to they system. Someone who works hard and is just in need of extra support is someone we all can agree to help, but some addicted person who is so messed up they cant even raise children righteously or someone wont try help build a nice community , these are people who need to be put in check. How could this be done without being called unfair is a matter of debate.

[sabertooth]

is most of this stamp food money is spent on junk food (corn, canned, cured meat.....).

it could a way to create consumers for junk food (which already is subsidized by tax payers)

yes its a vicious cycle people who eat junk food are the first to fall victim to poor health and when they are disabled living on foodstamps they buy the same junkfood they were always eatting

[Sully]

43 million AMERICANS on food stamps. America is FULL of fish, and plenty of places to fish.

Well, not so. You do need a license, and for certain fish like salmon you need a certain license. Also its hard to find a clean place to fish in the city here. Although, I ate a trout cooked right from a city pond. Prob not a good idea to do frequently. It's not really a scare from the gov., some waters here are truly fudged up. I would have to find a good spot away from pollution.

[Sully]

I want to go spear fishing. It's illegal now I think though. You know, the spears with the fork shape. I got a couple fishing forks I could uses.

http://fishing-master.iblogger.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/ice-fishing-spear.jpg

[KD]

can't believe people still insist on such universalized simplistic panning of such things

there is inequity everywhere and the systems made to compensate for it are incredibly flawed. OK. All these public arguments do is set off balance the same old tug of war between the people (and thus government) who is set on cutting such things out of existence for their own pocket...or one that rationalizes such assistance and interference in a variety of social and economic things. Back and forth, thats it.

The idea that within the present system that people really have a choice whether to accept or reject assistance is just mind boggling to me. the reason that many Americans are on some type of assistance is because there is that much inequality due to the way capital works, not due to how some corrupt version of social informed american capital works. In fact it seems(ed) far less a problem in the more socially-democratic European countries.

Think back to all civilizations about how those with resources treat those with little. At least with some assistance, a few intelligent, good people on this board can get some decent food for their family. If a referendum was voted tomorrow and such blanket theories really penetrated the masses, all you would have is a few richer fat cats and a many more desperate people on the streets. The money saved would go absolutely no where towards benefiting those people as an isolated act. The fact that people can cite the pointless war funding and other things to possibly whittle away at the estate taxes and make progress is just scary. There is absolutely no one that makes money at that level that doesn't owe a tremendous debt to individuals from pollution/energy/ and other inequities and damage they have caused creating their wealth. They should just transfer those dead peoples accounts right to the food debit cards. fair to me. Unless you are like Tesla or something, all profits have an implied debt to people and the planet, no seedy underbelly of destruction in politics should overshadow that. A good political viewpoint/argument has the ability to target issues on a case basis, and not just suggest massive ideological changes to get things running. This would mean taking 43 million people off, and doing what....?

the video I posted was Jared Lee Loughner

[sabertooth]

Wasn't Rome a welfare state, the people were kept happy off of the spoils of the Provence's and fed by the work of slaves, it was a workable model for that time and place, it must of been nice at least for those who weren't the slaves, then again I bet some of the slaves had it better than others.

[KD]

Wasn't Rome a welfare state, the people were kept happy off of the spoils of the Provence's and fed by the work of slaves, it was a workable model for that time and place, it must of been nice at least for those who weren't the slaves, then again I bet some of the slaves had it better than others.

I've studied alot of that stuff and medieval history. Medieval serfs worked like 15 hours a week or something. it ridiculous that people cannot see that problems are the very systems of profit making at the expense of just about everything, and assume the freedom to express the same unregulated activities is ok. No evidence of government interference in regards to civil rights or any other such things can sway these people, even though its clear that if these basic constitutional type governments existed in the past (of which coincidentally there has never been to prove workability), the country probably wouldn't have moved forward at all in regards to these points/no intervention.

---

I've had pretty extreme pessimistic views on government, or the environment myself in various periods as hopelessly deranged, and ultimately what becomes apparent is the same kinds of statements could have been made over decades, century, millennial even. Why be the person held up in their barn since the 60's spewing the same nonsense about how the government is going to come in any day now.

corruption in government is not new, the only thing that has increased is awareness of corruption. There are indeed so many murky realizations that become almost shocking in terms of what ours and other governments do to the point that it becomes unfathomable.

Ultimately what it comes down to is this stuff doesn't hold a candle to Mao or Stalin or whatever and being shot in the head for doing nothing. I know my freedom is limited in various ways and my body and mind has suffered to a large degree based on unfairness, but I don't have a curfew or am in constant fear of death from Mexican drug lords or religious zealots or had to join an army when I was 14. These are things that are forced. taxes are just pay to play.

Its not particularly new-agey to believe that anything that promotes constant fear/danger is bad by default, particularly when many of these issues are not new and don't/won't change. I just saw some study that noticed actual brain differences in conservatives and otherwise in terms of the enlargement of nodes that produce fear. Acknowledging that the system will not change dramatically is not cynicism but the opposite. Plenty of issues from casinos being built in every town to money relegated to health care and food stamp programs are issues that need to be tackled individually within that system and that is just the way it is. Saying things are default bad because of some ideal makes 0 sense. Saying that people should have the right to just put up a casino anywhere or all drugs should be legal due to hypocrisies or because that is capitalism is just naive.

for me my main political issue these days is whether the bike paths get sweeped or not. I like sticking with things I can prove are good and therefore that is my issue. Some people think that in such tight economic times, this is not important and if I was a good citizen I should have a car and do what everyone else does. If you get some (dreadful!) FDR inspired person, maybe they will pay someone to sweep the bike path (with stolen money) to create some jobs and maybe even put a pull-up bar in the park by my house. Odds areit will be incredibly inefficient and knowing my hood filled with kick backs and corruption. Either way, I'm pretty sure I would have a hard time convincing an unregulated auto-industry to donate to produce and maintain more bike paths, so with that alone I know that such ridiculous expectations of what is fair or unfair have no relevance in the real world.

[SkinnyDevil]

My remark about "fishing" was metaphoric, not literal.

To be blunt & literal: We don't need to indefinitely support people through public aid. Period. If public money is to be spent, it should be spent on education & training. To quote the old saying referenced by YS: "Give a man a fish, you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, you have fed him for a lifetime."

The idea that within the present system that people really have a choice whether to accept or reject assistance is just mind boggling to me.

Not to me.

1) There are plenty of people who reject using public assistance, and many who use it for an extremely  short period of time (treating it as "emergency assistance") and then walk away. My argument is first and foremost against using it for long periods of time or indefinitely ("gaming the system" arguments).

2) My secondary argument is that the federal level government (in the US) should not be engaged in ANY sort of public aid, whether to the rich or the poor. I'm as much against corporate bailouts and industry subsidies as I am against food stamps and free housing.

3) Next on the list, I argue that government AT ANY LEVEL is not fit to provide such assistance (see my earlier post citing the fact that gov soaks up 90% of the cash for administrators). Of course, this is hardly an "argument" in the traditional sense; it is simply a fact of life.

4) Government has never been about getting rid of these systems. Government implemented these systems and then worked hard to expand the systems (despite their lip-service to the contrary).

5) KD - your final question was "This would mean taking 43 million people off, and doing what....?".

Simple enough. Cut out all public assistance over the span of a few years so people know it's coming and can prepare. Cut it all, welfare to the rich and then welfare to the poor. And then, while we're at it, cut the income tax to zero.

[KD]

My remark about "fishing" was metaphoric, not literal.

To be blunt & literal: We don't need to indefinitely support people through public aid. Period. If public money is to be spent, it should be spent on education & training. To quote the old saying referenced by YS: "Give a man a fish, you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, you have fed him for a lifetime."

yeah I'm well aware of this stuff but you are already presenting a problem. You are giving caveats to a ideology that is so rigid if it every happened (which it won't), people wouldn't be able to say "hey lets take everyones money again because people arn't being educated and no one wants to pay for it and so forth."

The reality is is that only in todays corrupt situation can people use these programs and scholarships and so forth to pull themselves out of poor circumstances. There might be a shitstorm of problems resulting from that and mass problems economically too, but it IS better than Laissez-faire style mentalities penetrating real issues that impact real people. Since what you are saying won't happen, the only result is impacting peoples minds to cut such programs and similar things on the basis that such things are unfair, without actually having drastic restructuring to make up for it. Happens all the time on the local level. This is why people increasingly shft parties these days, because such issues get split, and people all of a suffen find that certain things are important for them or others and are not cut and dry. The basic idea that these thigns are theft and so forth..really is just big talk...that IS society. If people can make coherent claims and arguments that don't fall back on such assumptions on how a society could work, then that is fine.

[TylerDurden]

Sabertooth, Rome had a wonderful civilisation, but slavery was one of the reasons it was eventually destroyed, according to Gibbon. At first glance , slavery might seem like it benefits the masters but it actually weakens them, making them too dependent on such slaves. For example, Ancient Greece had already discovered steam-technology thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution but they failed to develop it, because they already had slaves to do the rowing of the boats etc., so couldn't be bothered. Same with Rome- at first, Rome used its own citizens for its armies and rewarded them with foreign plots of land seized from their enemies after 20 years' service, but then they turned to using foreign mercenaries instead, and the Roman Empire started to decay.

Another point:- the reason why Christianity was one of the other main reasons for the destruction of the Roman Empire was the existence of slavery, as slaves were the most devoted/fanatical of the Christian followers.

[turkish]

Sabertooth, Rome had a wonderful civilisation, but slavery was one of the reasons it was eventually destroyed, according to Gibbon. At first glance , slavery might seem like it benefits the masters but it actually weakens them, making them too dependent on such slaves.

True Tyler,
 we had Slave Kings in India, who were slaves to begin with but they grew in rank in the army (as they did the actual fighting) untill eventually they overthrew their weak rulers.

[SkinnyDevil]

yeah I'm well aware of this stuff but you are already presenting a problem. You are giving caveats to a ideology that is so rigid if it every happened (which it won't...

I disagree.

I often hear that certain things "won't ever happen"....but I'm old enough to remember when all manner of things were never gonna happen. Not to mention stories from my dad and grandfather about things they heard would never happen (my grandfather was born prior to social security cards, gun control, free housing, & food stamps...my dad never would have dreamed of free health-care outside of the military). I remember the fall of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall.

I was around in the Reagan years when we were calling for legalization, and I was told by a politician (and everyone else) that legal pot was "never going to happen". Now, almost 30 years later, everyone assumes it's just a matter of time....and they are correct.

I was around in the Clinton years when everybody laughed at Hillary and her health-care plans and said it would never happen. Now, almost 20 years later, we've already passed large portions of it and the fight quietly continues.

I was listening to libertarian philosophers (hardly a "rigid ideology", if that is what you refer to) for the past 30 years talk about everything from legalized prostitution to Health Savings Accounts to Fair Tax to selling off public lands to ending foreign wars...and listening to everyone else laugh (if they noticed at all) and say "never gonna happen". Now, ALL of these ideas have entered the mainstream (prostitution enjoys de facto legal status in most local levels so long as their "escort services" and "massage parlors" are registered; republicans have co-opted ideas like HS accounts & Fair Tax; Bush DID sell off a small percentage of public lands; etc.).

Anything is possible, but political change doesn't happen overnight.

To your earlier point, I absolutely agree with focusing at the local level and making meaningful changes there first. Hence my points about the irrelevancy of the federal gov in the "2020" thread.

[laterade]

No need to overthrow them, just focus on overGROWing them.

[KD]

The problem really is not that things 'can't' or 'won't' happen (I'll still go with this expectation myself), but you can't wait till things shift dramatically before making judgments on things on a case by case basis. The idea that these things are unfair or whatever really are only from the perspective that one would know that other systems would do a better job within the same situations, not some utopic fantasy of what life could be. I got into this stuff along time ago with Heinlein, and other SF stuff and it made alot of sense for future moon civilizations and that is about it. Many problems ultimately have nothing to do with our particular government or any government but just how people will behave and how money and status (or lack there of) will come into play. There is no precedent for saying that even with an excess of unfettered wealth that people will give 1/3 of their income voluntarily to helping and educating others across the entire spectrum of class and race. People can say (as their opinion) that they don't believe people should fundamentally have the responsibility to that, and i'll just say based on the way the system works and people are able to make money only at the expense of others, that it is fundamentally wrong to think so.

Didn't think it was a good idea to read/participate in the thread you are talking about. To me it just seems obvious in regards to this issue alone that REAL people would be in a worse spot if there were not such systems in place - as immediate or even gradual removal of such policies would not automatically mean more jobs or tools and resources - so everything else just seems pretty theoretical/judgmental to me.

[TylerDurden]

The way I see it, technology is advancing to the point where real, personal freedom is potentially attainable within perhaps 50 years or less. For example, if solar power advances steadily as now, we will in 2 decades or 3 at most, be able to use solar power for free without having to pay electricity companies constantly for use of lights etc.. The Internet and Skype already make it possible to communicate across vast distances for free. If technology goes anywhere near the Singularity-threshold, we will certainly all be independent of government, of course, but I can see other ways right now:- I already know of a  number of RVAFers who have gone back to Nature and just live on a farm and get all their food from cattle/chickens/fruit-trees etc. they own.

[CHK91]

The way I see it, technology is advancing to the point where real, personal freedom is potentially attainable within perhaps 50 years or less. For example, if solar power advances steadily as now, we will in 2 decades or 3 at most, be able to use solar power for free without having to pay electricity companies constantly for use of lights etc.. The Internet and Skype already make it possible to communicate across vast distances for free. If technology goes anywhere near the Singularity-threshold, we will certainly all be independent of government, of course, but I can see other ways right now:- I already know of a  number of RVAFers who have gone back to Nature and just live on a farm and get all their food from cattle/chickens/fruit-trees etc. they own.

If the whole idea about technological singularity is true, and if we are indeed able to free ourselves of biological limitations by merging with machines, what we do now will ultimately be pointless. However, I want to feel great in the meantime at least. 

[KD]

If the whole idea about technological singularity is true, and if we are indeed able to free ourselves of biological limitations by merging with machines, what we do now will ultimately be pointless. However, I want to feel great in the meantime at least. 

I've thought about that
going to check into my 2:30 nanobot detox, I ate a chili cheeze donut last night and need a good blood cleaning

I agree with Tyler really, I mean people dismiss how much freedom already is available and how much some of this stuff is inevitable. The policies now have their place now in terms of providing services based on a shift of past-present-future ways of living. I'm always just supremely shocked with how negative people can flip some of this stuff particularly in my 5 years of wasting time on health forums. Mostly it seems like an awareness to how bad things have always been but flipped somehow into how worse they are getting. I'm pretty pleased I can actually access organic food and walk home and not get stabbed. Neither option was around in the 80's where I have lived. The internet is a helpful improvement too, invented by Al Gore of all people 

[CHK91]

I often wonder how society will be in future. For example, will money even exist in the future? If the singularity, provided it happens, does make energy dirt cheap, and if technology creates more sophisticated machines to do the work that humans do, we won't really have a use for money at some point. There may be a point when humans don't have to perform maintenance on sophisticated machines because of being able to sustain themselves. Then, there goes the maintenance work for humans too.

[turkish]

There may be a point when humans don't have to perform maintenance on sophisticated machines because of being able to sustain themselves. Then, there goes the maintenance work for humans too.

Inspite of all the glamour of science i really doubt humans will merge with technology.

After delving into qigong/taichi i have realized that we humans have not even aware of the connection to the very body we posses & strange thing is that very few even talk about it ..