An Enabling Government (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Mercnbeth -> An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 10:41:00 AM)

I post this to educate myself. I hope you'll indulge me.

There was an old saying that went something like; "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." From my perspective it seems that the US government is in the fish give away business.

Yesterday's NY Times documented a situation which brought this to my attention. ...the city urges the needy to seek aid (in languages from Albanian to Yiddish). Neighborhood groups recruit clients at churches and grocery stores, with materials that all but proclaim a civic duty to apply - to "help New York farmers, grocers, and businesses."

There is even a program on Rikers Island to enroll inmates leaving the jail. “Applying for food stamps is easier than ever,” city posters say.

The same is true nationwide. After a U-turn in the politics of poverty, food stamps, a program once scorned as “welfare,” enjoys broad new support.

The Times goes on to highlight one particular beneficiary: A big woman with a broad smile, Ms. Bostick-Thomas swept into the group's office a few days later, talking up her daughters' college degrees and bemoaning the cost of oxtail meat.

“I’m not saying I go hungry,” Ms. Bostick-Thomas said. “But I can’t always eat what I want.”

The worker projected a benefit of $147 a month. “That’s going to help!” she said. “I wouldn’t have gone and applied on my own.”

Now before you direct your ire at me thinking this is a shot at the Ms. Bostick's of the world who use the government so they can buy oxtail meat; please read on. This is much more about the seller of the oxtail meat, and all the other products than it is about Ms. Bostick.

Do you appreciate the insidious nature of this program? It creates a citizen's reliance on government. According the article at this time 1 of 8 American's get some kind of assistance. That's over 12%. Add that to the public employees union members, about 30% considering Federal, State, and Local, and you have a 42% voting block. Are they going to vote for anyone campaigning to cut bureaucracy?

However the ultimate beneficiaries are not the recipients of aid, and its not even the burocrates; it's the special interest businesses that reap the profits.

On the surface it appears this alliance has made for strange bedfellows. A Republican Senator, Richard Lugar, is one of the key food stamp proponents. Why? Obviously Indiana farmers, mostly corporate farms at this point, are the ultimate beneficiaries of this welfare program. When I see this type of bipartisan support the first thing I think about is agenda. In this case I think the agenda is very clear and is the same on both sides of the political aisle. It will continue until people see it for what it is and get tired of it. However, I don't know if that will happen since so many now are direct beneficiaries.

At my age and situation, my future isn't dependent on how this and other similar government initiatives turns out. However I'm curious and I want to know if I'm so out of touch that most people don't see this corporate special interest, government, recipient symbiotic relationship; as a bad idea.

Is giving away 'fish', as the matrix is currently constituted, something you support?

Is the idea of growing segment of US rely on the government a basic reason for government to exist?

Are you okay with the distribution of corporate welfare by manipulating the market demand through the hands of individual beneficiaries like Ms. Bostick so she can buy oxtail meat, a policy you support?



DarlingSavage -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 10:45:46 AM)

Um, I find it rather hard to believe that food stamps are that easy to obtain. I'm a student. I could certainly use them. But, as I have no kids and I'm officially "too rich" to get such assistance, I'm going to just have to rely on eating Ramen noodles and watch out for free food at parties and social events at school.



Thadius -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 11:09:53 AM)

They just held hearing this last fall here in Michigan, about people using their food stamps to buy products with deposits (10 cent per can) so they could empty the contents and return them for the cash. There were also claims of folks using the program to update their menus to include prime rib and filet mignon.

C'est la vie. There will always be folks that try to exploit the generosity of others, and there will always be those that are in genuine need of such generosity.



juliaoceania -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 11:21:18 AM)

I had to go on food stamps when I was raising my son.

I am no longer on the food stamp program.

When you live in a small town with seasonal work and have a long, cold, hungry winter sometimes a person needs help to put food on the table. In a country that has so much food it is getting thrown away it makes sense that we would feed those who do not have enough to feed themselves... especially with unemployment over 10 percent and very little likelihood that it will go down in the near future.

I am unapologetic that I used food stamps to feed my son.

It is like when they used the image of the welfare queens popping out more and more babies to get on the government dole, what a bunch of propaganda THAT was, and not rooted in statistical reality. The fact of the matter is  that most women on welfare stayed on the program for less than two years, were White, going through a divorce, had only two kids on the program, and had no more than that while receiving assistance... but a couple of welfare abusers made all these women look like leeches trying to work the system for everything they could get, which wasn't true.

So as for these few quotes from some news story, I will file that in the "propaganda" file it belongs in because I know that most people would rather make money and feed themselves than to put their hand out to a government agency. I know this from experience. The food stamp program is a highly successful program that has benefited millions of children since its inception that would have otherwise went without.



thornhappy -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 11:21:36 AM)

Hey Merc, where do you suggest people get high enough pay so they won't qualify?  Mrs. Bostwick-Thomas is pulling down the grand sum of $15000 a year.

The numbers are so high nowadays due to the high unemployment.

BTW, why do you care?  You're leaving the country and going to a country notorious for socialism and its unstable government.



Mercnbeth -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 11:49:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
I will file that in the "propaganda" file it belongs
The question is julia, propaganda supporting the benefits of corporate welfare or individual welfare?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
Hey Merc, where do you suggest people get high enough pay so they won't qualify?  Mrs. Bostwick-Thomas is pulling down the grand sum of $15000 a year.

The numbers are so high nowadays due to the high unemployment.
In Mrs Bostwick's on words she wasn't going hungry. To your point - how does receiving this stipend get Ms Bostwick closer to a job that pays enough for her to satiate her desire for oxtail? Without the stipend perhaps Ms. Bostwick would seek an an answer to your question; getting her $147 - she doesn't have to.

My suggestion would be pointed to the teaching to 'fish' and making the process come with a caveat for some kind of work. When work is required to receive a benefit value is assigned to both. Something given out free - is worthless.

quote:

BTW, why do you care?  You're leaving the country and going to a country notorious for socialism and its unstable government.
True enough - and that "notorious for socialism, unstable" government is a lot more attractive as is and as it's trending than this one as is, and is trending; of course only from my limited first hand experience focused exclusively on my personal objectives. I'm confident after visiting there a few times and working with people there, that the issues of socialism and instability are also a matter of perspective and agenda.

I don't necessarily "care", however I happen to enjoy the process of acquiring knowledge and other perspectives, appreciating at the same time that others don't. It is particularly apparent that many people detest having some things pointed out. Who knows, maybe it makes their heads hurt to think through some of these issues.



juliaoceania -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 12:03:08 PM)

The food stamp program has always been a farm subsidy... this is not news to me... is it news to you?

The point is your commentary about it all is something that i just do not agree with ... your premise that people will be permanently on government assistance because they take food stamps because they cannot feed their family temporarily is not borne out by statistics... language like this

quote:

There was an old saying that went something like; "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." From my perspective it seems that the US government is in the fish give away business.




and

quote:

Do you appreciate the insidious nature of this program? It creates a citizen's reliance on government. According the article at this time 1 of 8 American's get some kind of assistance.


Are easily dismissed because no one is an island unto themselves... people need help sometimes. Whether they get it at the local church or a government program, or from a neighbor, it really just shows that without others we do not exist as a species.

And this part of your post.....

quote:

Add that to the public employees union members, about 30% considering Federal, State, and Local, and you have a 42% voting block. Are they going to vote for anyone campaigning to cut bureaucracy?


Add them to people receiving public assistance? Really? These people are WORKING... geesh







Mercnbeth -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 12:22:01 PM)

quote:

The food stamp program has always been a farm subsidy... this is not news to me... is it news to you?
It has never been at this level of participation on either side of the ledger. I'm surprised to see you rationalizing the support of corporate welfare. That is news, or at least new information regarding you that I have learned.
quote:

because they take food stamps because they cannot feed their family temporarily
This is a false premise. Nowhere in the NY Times article is a reference to anyone starving if not for the food stamp program. It documents a marriage between special interest farming and the retail grocery industries with the government using conditions in the general population to facilitate corporate welfare.

quote:

your premise that people will be permanently on government assistance because they take food stamps because they cannot feed their family temporarily is not borne out by statistics
What statistics support that position? I'd be interested to read a source that documents that the number of people seeking and getting government assistance have decreased.

quote:

Whether they get it at the local church or a government program, or from a neighbor, it really just shows that without others we do not exist as a species
I would be the first to say the role of charities and churches is to provide assistance to those in need. I question it being a priority of government.

quote:

Add them to people receiving public assistance? Really? These people are WORKING... geesh
"geesh" what? Whether working or not and getting public assistance, the total create a formidable voting block. Do you disagree with the numbers reported by the NY Times?



NeedToUseYou -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 12:35:01 PM)

The problem I personally have with food stamps is that they aren't restricted to healthy necessary food.

Like you shouldn't be able to buy coke with food stamps or candy, or pizza roles. You should be able to buy milk, basic meat, bread, butter, etc..

Around here food stamps appear to be a subsidy to Coke and pepsico and heart surgeons than providing life sustaining food.





Onlygoodforuse -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 12:41:14 PM)

NeedToUseYou, this is a topic i've talked about to a lot of people, I think you may find this VERY interesting.

Agribusiness is a huge industry, especially corn. And they have lobbyists that get corn producers huge subsidies in texas etc. from the government, and the result is corn which isn't so profitable is suddenly EXTREMELY profitable. There are literally mountains of corn out there, making it cheap, so its put (in the form of high fructose corn syrup) into most everything. Especially things like soda, and twinkies. A side effect is that with all the added corn production due to the subsidies, there is LESS production of healthy vegetables like spinach, broccoli etc. So they go up in price.

The end result is that something unsubsidized like a simple carrot is expensive at a grocery store, while things like twinkies are dirt cheap. So, if you're poor, and trying to meet your caloric requirements - you get far more calories for your dollar buying twinkies etc. If you tried to buy vegetables and other wholesome food, you'd likely starve to death. This is why school cafeteries serve such unhealthy food, because its cheap.

So, the government gives out all these food stamps to the poor so they can buy things like twinkies and create more demand for corn. Meanwhile corn is displacing soybeans, which third world countries then cut down rainforests to grow.

its an incredibly complex issue... just trying to raise awarenesss.



Mercnbeth -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 12:54:12 PM)

quote:

So, the government gives out all these food stamps to the poor so they can buy things like twinkies and create more demand for corn. Meanwhile corn is displacing soybeans, which third world countries then cut down rainforests to grow.

its an incredibly complex issue... just trying to raise awarenesss.
Not only "complex" but mostly hidden from the public view. I agree more "awareness" is required.

Getting the approval of those leaning on the liberal side of philosophy to champion the cause of food stamps which ultimately benefit corporate profits funded by tax dollars is a very interesting situation. I don't support the scheme on any level, but I must say I admire it as a pragmatic business model. By looking deeper into this, I have a better understanding than I did before of corporate focus on farming interests.

Your point is exactly where I hope this discussion will go. Thanks!




juliaoceania -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 1:20:19 PM)

quote:

This is a false premise. Nowhere in the NY Times article is a reference to anyone starving if not for the food stamp program. It documents a marriage between special interest farming and the retail grocery industries with the government using conditions in the general population to facilitate corporate welfare.


I am talking about your commentary concerning the article, am I not granted the same leeway in commentary?


quote:

What statistics support that position? I'd be interested to read a source that documents that the number of people seeking and getting government assistance have decreased.


I will get some sources from you from a professor that did her dissertation work on Welfare to Work... Here are a few sources to get you going. All of these books address welfare myths, give statistical analysis about how many children have been fed. List who is on welfare and when they get off. I have a book buried in one of my boxes which would take me an hour to dig out and then another to find the exact statistics.. those stats would be 10 years old, but it does not change the fact that the food stamp program has fed many a child... including my own.


http://www.amazon.com/Welfare-Racism-Playing-Against-Americas/dp/0415923417/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265922548&sr=8-14

http://www.amazon.com/Welfare-Children-Duncan-Lindsey/dp/0195136713/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265922548&sr=8-13


http://www.amazon.com/MYTH-WELFARE-QUEEN-PRIZE-WINNING-JOURNALISTS/dp/0684840065/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265922708&sr=8-18


quote:

I would be the first to say the role of charities and churches is to provide assistance to those in need. I question it being a priority of government.


Yes, I know you do... I question the role of churches in giving out charity... but you know, I do not like most god squads, nor the bribery to take a loaf of bread to hear a religious message that is most likely nothing but garbage (just my opinion like you have an opinion).

quote:

"geesh" what? Whether working or not and getting public assistance, the total create a formidable voting block. Do you disagree with the numbers reported by the NY Times?


*geesh* these people provide valuable services to the rest of the society which pays them an honest wage for an honest days work...

And if you do not want to pay taxes for the work that they do, stop driving, don't call 911, and if your house catches on fire, just put it out yourself.



Mercnbeth -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 1:33:09 PM)

quote:

I am talking about your commentary concerning the article, am I not granted the same leeway in commentary?
Except your commentary was directed to people who "cannot feed their family"; not the cases nor the conditions presented by the NY Times.

quote:

it does not change the fact that the food stamp program has fed many a child... including my own.
No need to defend yourself or your situation. The benefits to the corporations exceeded what you received is the overall point. I'm sure you are not unique in circumstantial exceptional evidence regarding individual benefits.

quote:

I do not like most god squads, nor the bribery to take a loaf of bread to hear a religious message that is most likely nothing but garbage (just my opinion like you have an opinion).
The philosophy of government entitlements and corporate welfare is as much a religion as any of the 'god squads' you mention. The bureaucratic network is sacrosanct from criticism. Look how you, as a positive example of outcome, defend corporate entitlement programs with religious type furor.

quote:

*geesh* these people provide valuable services to the rest of the society which pays them an honest wage for an honest days work...

And if you do not want to pay taxes for the work that they do, stop driving, don't call 911, and if your house catches on fire, just put it out yourself.
You've eliminated less than 10% of the public work force. Happy to pay them and reduce the other 20% pushing papers and managing self sustaining bureaucracies whose only goal is perpetuating the problem they were allegedly set up to cure.

A very indoctrinated response. I find it noteworthy that when cuts are mentioned its always firemen, police, and teachers put on the front lines. They are used as pawns to defend the bishops and knights behind them serving no other purpose but wasting resources.

Thanks for the links - I appreciate there being a rationalization from independent sources providing government welfare to the farming and grocery industries. I look forward to reading them and seeing their reasoning for enabling the situation to grow to the current levels of usage where 12.5% of the population now gets some form of government subsidiary.



tazzygirl -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 2:26:32 PM)

Unemployment rate... 10%. Pretty much sums it all up for me. There will always be someone who scams... but most are honest people, not getting full benefits, and adding the extra to make ends meet till the end of the month.



juliaoceania -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 2:29:27 PM)

quote:

Except your commentary was directed to people who "cannot feed their family"; not the cases nor the conditions presented by the NY Times.


And your commentary about those who have government jobs was?

I think that the fact that many people go hungry, and there are many working poor, is very relevant... shrugs... I suppose the human element just doesn't matter

quote:

The philosophy of government entitlements and corporate welfare is as much a religion as any of the 'god squads' you mention. The bureaucratic network is sacrosanct from criticism. Look how you, as a positive example of outcome, defend corporate entitlement programs with religious type furor.


Wow... A little shrill, isn't it?

I am not one of these people that is anti government... it is ironic to me that you do not seem to post how much the wars we fight for corporations cost, yet this subsidy bothers you so deeply....

Like I said... we have a completely different view of the world, and I prefer mine to yours, and that is unlikely to ever change. I only get more left as time goes on, not less so.


quote:

A very indoctrinated response. I find it noteworthy that when cuts are mentioned its always firemen, police, and teachers put on the front lines. They are used as pawns to defend the bishops and knights behind them serving no other purpose but wasting resources


Like I said, don't use any government service, then stop complaining about them... otherwise it just falls on deaf ears over here....

quote:

I appreciate there being a rationalization from independent sources providing government welfare to the farming and grocery industries. I look forward to reading them and seeing their reasoning for enabling the situation to grow to the current levels of usage where 12.5% of the population now gets some form of government subsidiary.


Since those were not my points on posting to this thread, you will be waiting a very long time... ta ta



Lucylastic -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 3:09:08 PM)

I have no desire to get into a dumbass emotional rant against a pragmatist. but at the moment there is a poverty survey going on in response to the Ontario government.
A quick list of basic items for an average person and costs per month
We dont get food stamps here, or an extra allowance, we do have food banks
please take the survey,
http://dothemath.thestop.org/survey.php
please remember that in toronto specifically , you cannot find an apartment under 400 $ a month for a single, unless you can share a house. And utilities are usually extra.
I would rather have a safety net than see people dying  starving on the streets.
Next door neighbour has worked all his life, lost his job also has inoperable cancer. wife has never worked outside the home and  barely speaks english and their  daughter is in college, not working.
Their rent is 850 a month, their hydro and gas is 180
their total government check is 1129 per month
He is waiting for disability but that will take him to 1400 a month, he expects to die before that kicks in.

People who need the help, really dont give a rats arse about the politics, they just worry about what they are gonna eat all month
Ps Oxtail is hardly fillet mignon











Moonhead -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 3:14:59 PM)

Oxtail was banned during the BSE scare over here.
It's one of the cheaper cuts, but it is pretty tasty in a casserole. Of course, most of it's bone rather than meat, so you'll need a lot of it for a decent meal.



Onlygoodforuse -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 5:19:22 PM)

Some people are bringing up that food stamps fed them and getting very emotionally vested in this.....

i don't really want to get so into this, but, these people are like the people who argue

"Wal-mart is good for the community, when I was unable to find a job or afford food, Wal-Mart's low prices allowed me to eat."

They're very emotionally attached to walmart for feeding them with the low prices, but in reality if Wal-Mart wasn't leeching the money from their community they could find a job.



What I'm saying, is that subsidies to corn drive up the price of everything else, which make it harder for them to afford to eat. Then foodstamps allow them to pay the same corporations that are being subsidized.

Perhaps if healthier foods were subsidized, food stamps would buy them, and more local farmers could get the money. Creating jobs, fueling a healthy economy etc.

I always try to eat from local farmers markets for that reason.

And, don't get me started on the money the healthcare could save. The annual healthcare expenses on obesity related causes is in the billions. if healthier foods were what people were able to food, and there were less obese people, that number would plummet.

Some states have already begun taxing 'junk food' to this effect.



Not totally on topic, just some things to think about.



juliaoceania -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 6:09:43 PM)

quote:

Some people are bringing up that food stamps fed them and getting very emotionally vested in this.....

i don't really want to get so into this, but, these people are like the people who argue

"Wal-mart is good for the community, when I was unable to find a job or afford food, Wal-Mart's low prices allowed me to eat."

They're very emotionally attached to walmart for feeding them with the low prices, but in reality if Wal-Mart wasn't leeching the money from their community they could find a job.


No... I am not emotionally invested in the continuation of the food stamp program. I am not eligible for food stamps, and I cannot envision ever needing them again...

What I am saying is that many children have been fed and continue to be fed via the food stamp program, and because of this I support this program. It is not like Walmart or shopping at Walmart whatsoever... the two have nothing to do with one another... they are apples and oranges..



Onlygoodforuse -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 6:16:36 PM)

Perhaps you could use an orange in a description of an apple to a person who'd never seen any other fruit before.

The point isn't that the 2 things are related,

its that food stamps are addressing the symptoms and not the cause.

And that they in fact escalate the problem.

The problem is that wholesome, nutritous, food is too expensive,

and the solution that foodstamps provide is to force everyone to eat the subsidized junk food,

its very possible to meet your caloric requirements and still be malnourished, they're 2 different things.

What if instead of food stamps we used the money to subsidize good foods, subsidizing local farmers and their organic foods, putting money into economies etc.?

That was my point.

next time you're in the grocery store, calculate how much it would cost to consume 2,000 calories of vegetables, vs 2000 calories of twinkies, chocolate brownies, sodas etc.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875