Food Stamp Nation

A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.

The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief.

I am not willing that the vitality of our people be further sapped by the giving of cash, of market baskets, of a few hours of weekly work cutting grass, raking leaves, or picking up papers in the public parks. We must preserve not only the bodies of the unemployed from destitution but also their self-respect, their self-reliance, and courage and determination. This decision brings me to the problem of what the Government should do with approximately 5,000,000 unemployed now on the relief rolls.

FDR State of the Union 1935

Yet, when Richard Nixon took office, 3 million Americans were receiving food stamps at a cost of $270 million. Then CBS ran a program featuring a premature baby near death, and told us it was an infant starving to death in rich America. The nation demanded action, and Nixon acted.

By the time he left office in 1974, the food stamp program was feeding 16 million Americans at an annual cost of $4 billion.

Fast forward to 2009. The cost to taxpayers of the U.S. food stamp program hit $56 billion. The number of recipients and cost of the program exploded again last year.

Among the reasons is family disintegration. Forty percent of all children in America are now born out of wedlock. Among Hispanics, it is 51 percent. Among African-Americans, it is 71 percent.

Food stamps are feeding children abandoned by their own fathers. Taxpayers are taking up the slack for America’s deadbeat dads.

buchanan.org...




If I were to give you that first quote, which was by FDR, without telling you it was by FDR, who would you have thought it was from? A Conservative? A Libertarian?

It was by FDR about what happens when a society becomes dependent on a Safety net it was not meant for people to live on, it was what people fell upon when they have no other options. We have let the Welfare state grow to a size even FDR would have thought was sickening. We have officially become hooked on abusing a system meant for very rough times. It has taken the place of fathers in households, it has replaced self-reliance, it has destroyed the morality and has grown intrusive into our personal lives.

It was never meant to grow larger than Social Security, it was meant to help those who literally could not help themselves. It has grown too large and too intrusive, FDR the founder of the US Welfare State acknowledged it yet they continue to expand it.

No comments yet? Come on!

LAST BUMP

reply to post by Misoir


I don't think there are that many people on ATS tonight, look at how old some of the recent posts are. It might be best to try to bump this again tomorrow sometime. I guess some people have real lives outside ATS and like to go out on a Saturday night.

I would've posted a response earlier but, I didn't really have anything to add beyond saying "I agree".

reply to post by Misoir


Misoir; tell me, FDR's quote at the begining of this thread, was he talking about welfare for individuals or welfare for corporations like banks etc??

cheers

reply to post by bussoboy

I find the whole concept of food stamps to be a strange one. It seems that it must stigamatise those who receive them. Why cant the value of the stamps just be made as a payment into the account of the receiver. Then people have the responsibility to spend that money as they choose. Why make people feel that they are unable to spend the money responsibly and leave them feeling stigamatised when they have to bring out stamps? Just seems like a divisive thing to have.

reply to post by Misoir


It is a politician's dream to have a society in the throes of ecomomic uncertainty, depravation, and soley dependant on them for their welfare. As Henry Kissenger once said, "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." Through a little crisis management and some crumbs off the table they can get a lot done as the people are more increasingly concerned with keeping the roof over their head and food in their bellies. This situation gives the politicians and the Bureaucracy more power to dictate and keep the cattle in line. If one is soley dependant on that meal ticket so graciously afforded to them by the benevolent masters in Washington, it relegates them to being apathetic to political discourse and they will associate with any party making promises to increase the benefits or maintain them regardless of how well they govern. If there is a serious infraction among the rabble, expect some cuts and more strigent rules in obtaining benefits. We must keep in mind if this trend continues the politicians and bureaucracy will be given more control over the elementary sustinance of a great majority of people and can shut off the faucet at anytime.

It is using crisis to their advantage. Moreover, serious matters like the reduction in liberties, unchecked government growth, government waste, poor fiscal policies, corruption, and other detrimental affects on the viability of the government overall is often forgotten or ignored. Mom and Dad will put on the chains to keep the unemployment benefits and foods stamps rolling in. The kids have to eat and need a roof over their heads. As a result the tax burden continues to escalate, and the economy gets closer to the cliff. At the same time the legislaters on both sides are enjoying cocktails and fancy cigars in some of the hidden back alley dives in Washington laughing and patting each other on the back.

This is not a Nixon or FDR matter, or even about Republicans or Democrats; all sides meet in the middle. It is all about control, and making the economic conditions favorable for increasing the numbers of those dependant on the government for assistance. We should be in the business of helping ourselves. These assistance programs were only meant to be a temporary fix and not a permenant way of life. People would face difficulties and get on these programs as they worked to better their situation to get off them. There was once a stigma associated with those who sought these benefits, but as more and more middle class are opting for these benefits as a result of the failing economy, that stigma is gone and these programs become normal. One thing I am unclear on is who is going to pay for all this if this trend continues? Moreover, these so called humanitarian gestures could have serious consequences if we are not careful, and more control will be afforded to those who have to much to begin with.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by bussoboy

 

Why cant the value of the stamps just be made as a payment into the account of the receiver. Then people have the responsibility to spend that money as they choose. Why make people feel that they are unable to spend the money responsibly and leave them feeling stigamatised when they have to bring out stamps?

Because

$69 million in California welfare money drawn out of state
Las Vegas tops the list with $11.8 million spent at casinos or taken from ATMs, but transactions in Hawaii, Miami, Guam and elsewhere also raise questions. Officials say budget cuts hinder investigations.

articles.latimes.com...

However, to those who care enough to feel a stigma attached to the use of welfare, may just be an added benefit, as it may encourage them to seek a way out of their financial situation. Unfortunately, many just don't care.

reply to post by WTFover


That was exactly the issue he was addressing, too many people would prefer to live on welfare thend find work.

Although the "welfare mothers" issue has been beaten to death (only saying that it's become cliche- not that it's invalid at all), it is the one aspect of public assistance that has made it *so* vulnerable to exploitation. It defies reason & reality.
In real life & supposing that Bill or Sue, or Bill & Sue, are working & raising a family in the normal way, Bill &/ or Sue do not get a raise if & when they have another child. Their income stays the same & that income must then be stretched to sustain the family plus another person. It doesn't "go as far" & the effects are felt. Felt enough, those effects might cause Bill & Sue to be more careful in the future *not* to add to their family unless & until their income increases. Welfare eliminates this practical need for self control. ("self control" isn't a good way of putting it. By that, I mean to be careful that their actions don't lead to an increase in their financial responsibilities) There's something inherently wrong & unfair when having another child = getting a raise, especially when the taxpayer is the paymaster.

Although it might not have originally been intended to, the prevalence of welfare has nudged the US down the road to socialism. It isn't such a great a leap now. Except for the aged, disabled or infirm, public assistance should have always been providing those "in need" of marginal employment *without* housing, food or medical "assistance"- even if it is just picking up trash or sweeping floors. If a person develops a hardship so that they cannot work, assistance should never be in the form of cash, but only in a sense of food distribution, housing itself (not "subsidized") & medical care. If a person owns a car, they should be ineligible for public assistance. Public transportation can take care of that.
I find it ironic that one of the memes regarding Obamacare is that "everyone else shouldn't have to pay for someone else's refusal to buy health insurance" when that is exactly the situation that has been set up regarding welfare. It is not uncommon where I live to see well dressed people pay for their groceries with a "Lone Star card" & then load those groceries into a decked out crew cab pick up, Suburban, or late model sports car. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 4 or 5 of their half dozen kids are what enables them to "afford" a vehicle like that. Gaming the system is a feature, not a bug, as they say.
The taxpayers are covering food, housing & medical care because many of these people want to spend their money on luxury items rather than the basic necessities of life- exactly what pro-Obamacare people are accusing mandate opposed people of doing.

Having said that, our government needs to quit the corporate welfare & policies that have destroyed our job base. AND they need to stop voting themselves a raise when they, themselves) are already millionaires- often several times over. Their "job" should be to provide for the public safety & infrastructure- no more & no less. It doesn't take a 6 figure salary times 535 people, PLUS thousands in support staff to do that (speaking of "welfare").
There's welfare at the "top" & welfare at the "bottom", but the people in the "middle" are- literally or figuratively, paying for all of it to the point of being left with nothing.
Food Stamp Nation, indeed, Misoir! Good post!

reply to post by DogsDogsDogs


I was studying this lately, it is an Academic version of Conservatism which is quite different compared to every other ideology I've seen before. It's very interesting to read. If you enjoy there are lots of publications by people who contributed to the theory.

Please let me know what you think about it either as a reply here or a U2U. I would love for another persons opinion.

Traditionalist Conservatism

reply to post by DogsDogsDogs


Just want to clear something up that I am sick and tired of seeing.

Myth: You get more money every time you have a child on welfare.

Fact:
YOU CAN NOT GET MORE MONEY FROM HAVING ADDITIONAL CHILDREN IF YOU ARE ALREADY ON WELFARE.

In fact If you give birth to a child while on welfare that child is banned from from welfare until that child no longer lives under your roof.

Lets say a woman who is on welfare Gives birth to a daughter. Since the mother is already on welfare she WILL NOT get more money for the new child. Even if she goes off of welfare for 10 years, when she reapplies the child she gave birth to while on welfare will not count.They will treat the daughter as though she does not exist.

Now lets say 18 years later that daughter gets pregnant and she wants to apply for welfare for her child. If she was living under her mothers roof at the time she became pregnant and her mother was collecting welfare she will not be able to collect welfare for her child. Once she moves out she can collect for her self but not for her child because her mother was collecting welfare at the time she got pregnant.

GET IT????

Can we stop spreading the lie that people get more money for having more kids?

or do I need to make a thread about this?

reply to post by Misoir


Wow. Thanks! :-) At first glance, this looks to be right up my alley. I'll dig into this as soon as I get dinner in.
All that I'm aware of is a "paleocon" point of view (which really resonates with me) & it seems like this might flesh that out some (I hope). I have abstained from most discussions there because it can get pretty deep & I feel like I'd be in way over my head. (I am pretty new to this or finding a "word" for it/ explanation for my own beliefs) It would be great to be (more) "fit for it".

reply to post by calstorm


You *can* make a thread about it, if you like, but (a) link(s) would be plenty. I honestly don't have time to dig for the legislation/ codes/ whatever. I will go through it, though, if I know where to look. I don't believe this was or is true regarding section 8 housing at least as of the late 90s. Having a number of friends/ my mom in apartment management, I'm pretty sure there were increases in (at least) housing subsidies. The laws then limited the number of persons who could live in a given size apartment & that may have been in play.

I'm curious, though. Where do you think that people who qualify for food stamps would get the money to drive such expensive vehicles & dress so well (I know the difference between style, cheap & higher end, believe me & in some cases, it isn't a matter of style- only that what they were wearing didn't fit what you'd expect a welfare recipient to be wearing)? (my point is that these observations make a welfare generated source of income plausible)

reply to post by DogsDogsDogs


I have enjoyed the works of Pat Buchanan and when I was searching this turned out to be very interesting to me too. It explains many things and it really is not part of the Left-Right paradigm. Glad you enjoyed it too, I doubt many people know about it.

reply to post by DogsDogsDogs


The law went into effect in 1997 signed into place by Clinton. It only applies to cash aid and food stamps. It doesn't apply to section 8.

If someone is driving a nice car, wearing name brand clothes or or owns "High end" things they are scamming the system and need to be reported.
Please please please report these people because it gives a bad name to people who legitimately need help, and ends up making things much harder for them.

I was on welfare about 10 years ago so I can speak from experience. A person who is using the system legitimately receives very little money. If you own a car that values at more than a certain amount blue book value it must be sold before you receive any sort of assistance.

10 years ago when I was on welfare I received. $555 in cash For myself and 3 children. Aprox. $400 in food stamps. Help for things like electricity and gas bills were non existent, After a year on the waiting list for section 8 finding a place that fell with in the qualification were near impossible. With 3 children I was not allowed to rent anything smaller than a 3 bedroom, but the monthly rent could not be more than $700. Living in California where at the time a 3 bedroom rundown apartment ran on average $1200 finding a place on section 8 was near impossible. The only thing you could get for $700 a month were scum lord manged apartments and because section 8 standards were so high most places wouldn't pass inspection.

So how do these people who drive nice cars and have nice things and nice homes on welfare do it? I really would like to know. However they are doing it though it sure as heck is not legit.

reply to post by Misoir


No the point was that giving a hand out leads to apathy and depression which destroys the soul of the country. It wasn't that people prefer wellfare to work. The point is that after being reliant on others, eventually you no longer care and stop trying.

Originally posted by calstorm
reply to post by DogsDogsDogs

 

or do I need to make a thread about this?

Make a thread about this and while you are at it explain how Octomom was able to do all she did on our dime.

reply to post by Misoir


I doubt it, too. I move that we get to work & start enlightening them. It frustrates me no end that paleocons- and traditionalists, are so obscure & aside from their excellent & soundly reasoned (my opinion, of course) commentary, are practically inactive in politics. lol I want to poke them with a proverbial stick & say GO! GO!
These are things that could make for excellent discussions on ATS & elsewhere.

This is just a great article, Misoir. If it is not complete, it must be pretty close. It is almost a primer/ syllabus for those who want to know more about (what I call) genuine conservatism.
This is an incredible & valuable find!

reply to post by DogsDogsDogs


But before we try and enlighten the masses (although I don't think that is a good word to use since it rejects the age of enlightenment) we should educate ourselves as much as possible about it so when we make the argue for it we know exactly where to hit 'em to make it hurt! Also it's always better to know things before you go off preaching them anyways.