Missouri Lawmakers Don't Want Food Stamp Recipients To Buy Steak

Pivotal Points in 'food stamp' evolution

I'm using bullets. Disclaimer: Not a lot of resources, and I didn't research it to death, but most of it is consistent with other historical data. I'm looking at notes, so this will probably need to go into several posts I hope you think it's interesting. Look for patterns......... it's interesting.

~1920's (depression years) There was a public uprising and people were upset seeing so many others who were malnourished. Newspapers were reporting on how many people suffered from malnutrition.

-1929 Herbert Hoover was President and public uprising became very loud, with people demanding something be done to feed the hungry. It was upsetting, and people were fainting on the streets from hunger and malnourishment. Hoover insisted that providing food to the hungry would "undermine the country's work ethic", and would end individuals and communities helping one another. He was considered to be very calloused and insensitive to the public, and was voted out of office in.....

1933. Enter FDR. At first he thought "The Red Cross" could take care of the hungry, but then realized it was too widespread. The US had multiple warehouses of surplus wheat, so he arranged that it be given to farmers to feed the cows. He also ordered that 70% of piglets be killed, to raise the cost of pork, to boost the economy.

The public went nuts at the waste. Outcry was enormous. People were still damaged from the depression, and this perceived waste was too much to bear.

Soooo, in order to diffuse so much public criticism, it was decided to let the unemployed have some of the wheat, and thus was born the "Bread Lines". (Lines formed to get a loaf of bread one could take home.) But at the time, this was radical. The government was buying from those who had too much, and redistributing it to those who had too little.

It was in this manner "commodities" came into the picture.

(Hm. I'm going to post what I've written so far, but I've got to move to word pad or something. Back with the rest of it later, but hang in there with me. I want you to see this 'pattern" I've noticed; one we are repeating now.)

Pivotal Points Post #2

The "commodities" program remained intact until The Food Stamp Act of 1964. It was broadened over time to include large containers of powered milk; a bag of cornmeal; a bag of flour; and a large block of "government cheese". (This block was HUGE. I've seen pictures of these commodities in textbooks. This thing was as big as BFFT's shoe box! And said to be very good. It was the same cheese they sent to the military.)

At times peeps could get big containers of peanut butter, depending on what the surplus was at the time. This was always a big hit. : )

~1950's Eisenhower continued commodities. They had been extended somewhat to a few vouchers where one could receive perishable items from groceries such as butter and eggs. This continued for quite a while, and all was quiet.

~JFK Extended the commodities program. Signing a bill to broaden the commodities program was his "first official act" as President. People were able to go to the grocery store with vouchers for butter, canned milk, and fruits and vegetables. Other shoppers noticed this, and again there was public criticism. People thought this was "coddling relief recipients". They felt butter and fruits were "luxury items".

Kennedy wanted to do more work in this area, and had vowed to do so, but as we know, he didn't have a chance.

~ Johnson wanted to improve this area too, but got caught up in vast complications with the Viet Nam war. But the cause was taken up by George McGovern, who worked tirelessly for improvement.

The Food Stamp Act was signed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. People could shop at the grocery store like normal human beings! (okay, I will try to keep editorial comments to a minimum). But the stamps were not issued without a price.
Recipients could purchase stamps. One could buy $64.00 worth of stamps for $20.00. There were still plenty of people out there who couldn't afford even that, so there was still malnutrition within the country.

The food stamps were not spent on any non-food items, but one could buy seeds, or live plants with them. Anything that produced food. The law stated food stamps could not be denied to anyone on the basis of race, religion, national origin, or political beliefs.

continued......

a reply to: Puppylove

The amounts related to food stamps.

a reply to: daskakik

And public assistance laws are not in the Federal as constructed.

Might as well be EOs.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It is the principle of the matters.

You of all people should know that.

Mac, we've shared these boards long enough....you should know I am going to play devils advocate most of the time.

Regardless....im not one to stand on principle when it comes to cash. The only thing I stand on when it comes to cash is green. And in this case, i am seeing welfare only costing a little jingle, while our campaign of terror across the globe is actually costing real green. Of that $4000 spent in taxes that I supposed earlier....a grand total of $250/year. 100 times more than the welfare contribution. Would that $2.46 make any difference in my life? Nope. The $250 would, though. At least for a moment.

As a businessman, i learned that sweating the small stuff will only drive you crazy. Because I am not going to salvage my profit margins with a savings of 6/100th of a percent.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I understand these things.

But, you can't argue that encroachment is encroachment. Little, big or in between, it is still encroachment.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: daskakik

And public assistance laws are not in the Federal as constructed.

Might as well be EOs.

But they are in the federal as expanded. That is the reality you live in. You don't have to agree with it but, it is what it is.

I mean honestly, before the Constitution and the BoRs, what was there? Was that more valid than the Constitution and the BoRs because it came before?

Face it, the federal as constructed, is defunct.

Pivotal Points Post #3

~Nixon -- Even though there were improvements, malnutrition was still very common, at least in part due to many people not really being able to afford them. (Peeps were poor, I tell ya!) Nixon had campaigned to champion this cause, and indeed he did. Almost immediately, he changed the price of food stamps from $20 for $64 dollars worth, to $10.00 for $106.00 worth. This was the most significant change ever. Nixon always wanted the stamps to be free for those making less than $30.00 a month, under a FAP plan. (Family Assistance Plan). (Not sure, but I don't think that happened.)

(Best I can tell, the government made it very difficult for a grocery store to be approved to accept food stamps. Lots of red tape. They had to jump through hoop after hoop and only "certain chains" were selected. (conspiracy?). But they were threatened with heavy fines -- $10,000, and five years in prison if caught engaging in anything that looked suspicious. And it was an enormous "checking" system, to oversee it, and make sure there was no fraud going on. (I mean, who were the big chains back then? A&P and Piggly Wiggly?)

~1970 Things were quiet.

~1973 and 74: Country going into a recession. Oil prices high, people in line at the pumps. Public going nuts over food stamps. Says the poor are getting too much and start complaining publically. (Yeah, it's those three oranges and a few apples they receive each month, that has put the country over the edge, right?)

~Gerald Ford. Wants to drastically cut the Food Stamp Budget. In 1974 they begin working on a 'better' payment table.
Due to the recession, the number of recipients had gone from 4.3 million to 9.4 million. By 1975 there were 19 million recipients. Huge public outcry against the program. Ford was able to cut the FS budget significantly.

In 1977 Jimmy Carter took office. He made the largest change ever. Food stamps were now free to those who met a stringent criteria.

There have been dozens of revisions to the The Food Stamp Act of 1964, since 1964. Literally, dozens. Changes have been done, and undone over and over.

/fin

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

My dear, "keeping them poor, is just an oxymoron", is those that work and still need government assistance and is those that do not do a darn thing but collect tax payers money (insert here my neck of the woods welfare town with three Wallmarts.

Food stamps is not a benefit is not an entitlement either, is a service and not a life time ride on, as a service that uses tax payers dollars it should be closely monitored, plain and simple.

We have an entire generation that thinks others tax payers money is their right by birth.

a reply to: macman

I can't. In a black and white world, where its "if/then" and "either/or", and we sum everything down to zero....you are absolutely correct.

I think of stress as a backpack full of rocks (a la Dan Millman). I can choose to climb the hill burdened with all that stress. Or i can choose to take it off, set it down, and leave it behind.

I've simply chosen to remove that backpack.

a reply to: daskakik

So, you are for laws and Govt that don't abide by Laws and past Govt.

Interesting.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You don't think that it won't come back to bite you in the butt later?

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

My dear, "keeping them poor, is just an oxymoron", is those that work and still need government assistance and is those that do not do a darn thing but collect tax payers money (insert here my neck of the woods welfare town with three Wallmarts.

Food stamps is not a benefit is not an entitlement either, is a service and not a life time ride on, as a service that uses tax payers dollars it should be closely monitored, plain and simple.

We have an entire generation that thinks others tax payers money is their right by birth.

This i will not argue with.

But I think the "closely monitored" starts in the approval process. Because, and lets be real honest here...its broken at that point. We all know the mom of three hungry kids that is declined for "making too much" at $10/hr. And we all know the folks who are ripping off the system.

But once you are approved for it, since you are presumably a tax payer that has paid into the system, you should be allowed to maintain at least a shred of dignity. It was mentioned in this thread earlier that there are folks who go hungry rather than tolerate the stigma that "welfare" would bring them. That is a damn shame, to spend your whole life working your ass off, only to be afraid of losing your dignity because complete strangers want to call you a "free loader".

Yes, there are free loaders out there. But, in the interest of not throwing out the baby with the bath water....perhaps "enforcement" and "oversight" should begin at step 1.

a reply to: macman

$2.46....not big enough to be on my radar right now.

But to be honest, i would triple that contribution every year (and be ecstatic to do it) if it would employ people to fix pot holes. If the conversation shifts from welfare to workfare....that is something I am willing to put my back into. Our nations infrastructure is starting to look utterly 3rd world.

When Texas roads look like Oklahoma roads...something is wrong.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I agree, that is why I say that is those that work but still need assistance and is those that never work but reproduce like they hold the best job in town, for the later is a way of life that they have passed in the next generation.

My husband and I are well off but no rich meaning we still have to budget in order to make sure that when the time comes when he may find himself without a job we can still make it.

But with all the money we have pay into taxes without never getting any benefits, I will never feel less human if I need to get government assistance.

originally posted by: macman
So, you are for laws and Govt that don't abide by Laws and past Govt.

I'm not for anything.

You're the one that keeps saying that you are for laws and Govt that didn't abide by the previous Laws and Govt. of King George III.

a reply to: daskakik

Really........sure sure then.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: daskakik

Really........sure sure then.

Well, you are holding the Constitution and the BoRs above the Royal mandate that they replaced, which is an example of what you were saying I was for.

I am not here saying any one thing/law/idea is better. I am not "for" anything.

a reply to: daskakik

You back Federal Govt based welfare....which is not within the confines of the Constitution.

The Americas being ruled over by England was terminated via Revolution.

To suggest that the same action is related to what we have is the probably the worst possible comparison one could suggest.

originally posted by: macman
You back Federal Govt based welfare....which is not within the confines of the Constitution.

I'm not backing it. I'm saying that it is part of the present system. I'm indifferent to it staying or going.

The Americas being ruled over by England was terminated via Revolution.

And the federal as constructed was terminated via the Civil War.

To suggest that the same action is related to what we have is the probably the worst possible comparison one could suggest.

You posted a vague statement about Laws and Govt not abiding by past Laws and Govt. It is a perfect example.

Shots being fired are not needed to have a change of government. Not the norm but not a requirement.