Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By the time the economy here collapsed, and I was laid off, my gardens were established. I would probably have been eligible to collect food stamps then, but having my garden prevented me from having to do so until I found another job and got back on my feet. Some meat and eggs were obtained from bartering - I once traded bushels of turnips for fresh sausage from a friend's pig farm. I assisted local farmers that summer with their harvest, for minimum wage. They were desperate for harvesters, but couldn't find enough people to do it, in spite of the local unemployment.
People in rural areas collect food stamps, also. They have available space/resources to learn to garden, and opportunities for harvest jobs, but don't seem to even want to try.
If people had to become more self sufficient, they would find a way to grow their own food, maybe through co-ops.
It would force recipient class people to become more productive citizens.
Show me the available land?? In urban areas do you really think there is enough and for all of the poor on food stamps? Are you going to offer up land in other areas? What will happen with that. Not to mention the cost of rights to the land. Where is that gonna come from.
I'm not totally down on the idea. People should be more self sufficient. But its not thought out. Right now it just comes off as libertarian whining.
If you simply eliminate foo stamps, people will resort to crime to survive. You have to give a realistic chance of success otherwise you are just setting people up for failure. When they do fail and it becomes a matter of survival, most won't roll over and die. If you cut off enough people and make them struggle to survive in order to maintain the affluence of the elite.......the revolution won't be far off
Show me the available land?? In urban areas do you really think there is enough and for all of the poor on food stamps? Are you going to offer up land in other areas? What will happen with that. Not to mention the cost of rights to the land. Where is that gonna come from.
I'm not totally down on the idea. People should be more self sufficient. But its not thought out. Right now it just comes off as libertarian whining.
If you simply eliminate foo stamps, people will resort to crime to survive. You have to give a realistic chance of success otherwise you are just setting people up for failure. When they do fail and it becomes a matter of survival, most won't roll over and die. If you cut off enough people and make them struggle to survive in order to maintain the affluence of the elite.......the revolution won't be far off
The truth is, most people on food stamps don't actually need them in order to survive.
They take them simply because they are there for the taking.
I am all for helping those who are truly needy and they should receive enough assistance to live without worry.
For the rest, means test them.
If you have a big screen TV, iPad, iPods, anything but a basic phone, "bling", anything except for basic transportation, cable or satellite TV, etc., you do not qualify.
I agree that the food stamp system is abused, but what about the children of this worthless parents. Do we let them starve because of their parents. Where is the humanity people!
In my response i did include the children as they are helpless if they have dead beat parents.
sad reality is the kids normally follow in the parents footsteps unless someone steps up to the plate
more the reason clubs are important like boys and girls clubs etc..
that is where you will find many heart warming stories of success.
seems the culture in america is following mom and dad at the welfare line
i have seen this first hand its sick but true
The truth is, most people on food stamps don't actually need them in order to survive.
They take them simply because they are there for the taking.
I am all for helping those who are truly needy and they should receive enough assistance to live without worry.
For the rest, means test them.
If you have a big screen TV, iPad, iPods, anything but a basic phone, "bling", anything except for basic transportation, cable or satellite TV, etc., you do not qualify.
Is that fair?
I have a big screen TV, that I bought years ago when I made 3 times more than what I make now.
I have a beat up iPod that I bought when I was in the Military and didn't have to worry about whether I was going have food to eat.
I have a Blackberry which I pay $25 monthly because I am on a "Sero" plan with the cell phone carrier I used to work for and got the phone for free when I worked for them. It's not a "basic" phone but the service is much cheaper than for most cell phones, even the flip ones who have nothing to them. I would get rid of it if I had to pay more than what I pay now.
What's your point? Do I need to sell everything I own (which is basically nothing in the first place) in order to be a candidate for Food Stamps?
You realize that some people can go from having a great monthly income to making basically nothing? I am one of those people. Did I see it coming? Nope. Savings can only last you so long.
I think Food Stamps should have a time limit. No more collecting it for 10, 15, 17 years. Unless you are handicapped, mentally retarded, elderly and unable to work AT ALL. I know some guy who was 45 and perfectly healthy but had some anxiety issues and didn't work. He collected everything under the sun: disability, food stamps, section 8 etc. I think he should get his behind out in the real world and work. I think he was just lazy and there are a lot of people like him out there and that's why I think there should be a limit on how long you can collect Food Stamps for.
The truth is, most people on food stamps don't actually need them in order to survive.
They take them simply because they are there for the taking.
I am all for helping those who are truly needy and they should receive enough assistance to live without worry.
For the rest, means test them.
If you have a big screen TV, iPad, iPods, anything but a basic phone, "bling", anything except for basic transportation, cable or satellite TV, etc., you do not qualify.
Is that fair?
But, but, but.... how could they live without their iphone and cable TV? Are you suggesting that people can live without TV ???????
i'd be okay with this concept if food banks or pantries actually had nutritious food, not soda, fruit cups, white bread etc. I went to a city run food bank and this is what i got.
I've been on food stamps to help me out while I go through school. I don't think people understand how hard it can be to get through school on your own and support yourself. I'd rather relieve some stress and use this "assistance" to help me balance school and work. if i had to work more, i would not have time for my studies. and with my tuition increasing 15% each year, i just want to get it done. when i am older and pay more into the tax system i will be more than happy to have my tax dollars go toward something like this as opposed to subsidizing big oil companies. i do agree that they should be more strict on the system, like have people be ineligible because of drug use.
If people had to become more self sufficient, they would find a way to grow their own food, maybe through co-ops.
It would force recipient class people to become more productive citizens.
Meh, food stamps are tiny as a budget item. Each year's farm bill though is packed with over a hundred billion in market distorting subsidies (the last bill had $125 billion most of which is for just a few crops). What do all of those subsidies end up doing? Farmers chase the subsidies planting more subsidized crops instead of responding to market demand to grow crops which they possibly could make more money with but that entails a bit of risk while government money is risk free.
In both Canada and New Zealand the total value of farm produce actually doubled in five years after the government ended all farm subsidies. Why is that? Simple instead of just continually planting the same subsidized crops even though no one but the government would buy them farmers were forced to try to raise crops they could actually sell in the free market. That means farmers knew they'd have to do better to create value since they couldn't just relay on the subsidies. They diversified what they planted so a drop in one crop price wouldn't bankrupt them, they identified high value niches, they found ways to get more efficient, etc...
All of that quickly added up to a double in the value of what farmers grew even though the total amount of land being farmed went down. That's a very good thing if you're an economist especially since it means farmers improve the value they get out of their land even though tax payers saved billions by no longer giving subsidies away. That's an all around win.
Ever heard of desperation? Hitting rock bottom? Valid psychology theories.
Hitting rock bottom ensures that people will do whatever they can to get feed. This does not mean work, it means get feed.
Parents during the depression ate their children, because they couldn't find work.
There aren't enough jobs to keep everyone at work.
And what most of y'all are forgetting, unless you are impaired, or for a short term, you have to work in order to get food stamps. Usually people making less than 30,000 dollars a year.
And your post doesn't answer my question. Please provide me with a link or a book name to a scientific study showing that people will work harder when they are feed less.
i'd be okay with this concept if food banks or pantries actually had nutritious food, not soda, fruit cups, white bread etc. I went to a city run food bank and this is what i got.
I've been on food stamps to help me out while I go through school. I don't think people understand how hard it can be to get through school on your own and support yourself. I'd rather relieve some stress and use this "assistance" to help me balance school and work. if i had to work more, i would not have time for my studies. and with my tuition increasing 15% each year, i just want to get it done. when i am older and pay more into the tax system i will be more than happy to have my tax dollars go toward something like this as opposed to subsidizing big oil companies. i do agree that they should be more strict on the system, like have people be ineligible because of drug use.
I have never seen the food stamp crowd concerned about healthy choices.
They're usually the type of people who can't figure out they should wait until they have a job to start having babies which means they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed and load the shopping cart with cookies, soft drinks, lard, all kinds of junk food.
As far as how to get through school? There's this concept called work your way through school. Many of us did that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
