Food Stamp Parties! - Page 5

Bartolome Casas · #61 Jul 12, '12, 4:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

And where my daughter lives, they can't own a car worth more that $2000.

She first went to Catholic Charities, who gave her a credit card which she could use for $100 worth of groceries at the super market.

However, they can't do that all the time, so THEY helped her get on the food stamp program.

The state is going after her ex-husband for failing to make his child support payments, but how are they going to get money out of a man who has no job and is on the verge of living on the streets himself?

Jim

No one should be ashamed for getting food stamps.

It really is a small part of the federal/state budget. Plus, food stamp spending ultimately goes to private businesses, so ultimately creates jobs and stimulates the economy.

By the way, I used to work for a state child support enforcement agency. We were only effective in cases in which a man had a good career. For men who were in and out of jobs, and homeless or near homeless, we did no good for anyone. For women who made a child with a man without a good career and who is often homeless or nearly homeless, she should just give up on all hope of ever getting support for the child from that man. She should stop waiting and hoping that the child support checks will start coming, or will start coming again. She should just regard the man as dead, and move on with her life. She needs to develop a reasonable plan and strategy to get the resources she needs to raise her child and children, a plan and strategy that does not depend on those child support checks coming in.

I've seen so many woman hoping and waiting for the child support checks, and them being angry when they don't come. Yes, anger at deadbeat dads is righteous anger, but it still doesn't accomplish anything.

In the olden days, lots of women were made widows by war, and many young kids were made dadless by those wars. Today we don't have so many wars, but we do have a cultural breakdown in society, such that men are no longer pressured to remain married, and such that men and woman are no longer pressured to have sex only in marriage, and such that men are no longer pressured and shamed by society into supporting their wife and children no matter what it takes. You could say that our screwed up society and culture is a war, a war on values, a war on virtue, and that men, women, and children are casualties of that war. On the bright side, there are many good Catholics and others working to build up a society of good values.

On a side note, the alcohol Prohibition in the U.S. from 1920 to 1933 was in fact a "social program," since it was meant to create condition in which men would be more able to be productive workers for their families, and in which men would spend their earnings on their wife and kids rather than on booze. To me, it is sad that Catholics were mainly opponents of Prohibition. Look at today. We have so many men ruined by alcohol abuse and overuse. So many of the dads who don't pay their child support are men who've been seduced into a life of constant drinking and drugging.

ringil · #62 Jul 12, '12, 5:28 pm

You know, thinking of the virtuous "shame" that some would impose on folks receiving food stamps- I would turn that around and say that if one's "shame" prevented them from receiving assistance for their family it could infact be pride and a sin.

"I'm not getting those! Not MY family!! I'm not one of THOSE PEOPLE!"

To impose hardship on ones family, or even oneself, out of a misguided sense of shame (pride) is hardly virtuous at all.

PTL · #63 Jul 12, '12, 6:21 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevegravy

More like trying to keep the folks on the government dependency plantation and buying more votes. Who won’t vote for more of other people’s money. This is the food stamp president.

How true!! What a way to buy votes! What a shame!
I pray Psalm 109:8

Suudy · #64 Jul 12, '12, 8:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartolome Casas

From 1776 to 1933 the government (U.S. federal government and state governments) practiced the "government is not a charity" policy.

The point is that the government is incapable of charity. It is an impossibility. What is the root word of charity? Caritas, which means "love". Is the government capable of love? Coercive "charity" is not charity, but slavery. True charity is only found in acts of love. What act of love is there in Uncle Sam, through the power of taxation, providing funds for food?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ringil

You know, thinking of the virtuous "shame" that some would impose on folks receiving food stamps- I would turn that around and say that if one's "shame" prevented them from receiving assistance for their family it could infact be pride and a sin.

"I'm not getting those! Not MY family!! I'm not one of THOSE PEOPLE!"

To impose hardship on ones family, or even oneself, out of a misguided sense of shame (pride) is hardly virtuous at all.

There is no disagreement on this point. Prideful neglect of one's family is problematic, and indeed "hardly virtuous at all."

However, there is a subtlety here that isn't being express by either side. Acceptance of charity (real charity, given out of love) is not a source of shame. But there is some sense of shame associated with being unable to provide for one's family. And I think that is appropriate. It is not prideful to feel ashamed of being unable to personally provide for one's own family. And that "virtuous 'shame' " is what motivates people to work way from needing handouts.

I think the point here is that there are some who do not see accepting charity (or government) handouts as indicative of the inability to provide for one's family. Indeed, there seems to be a push to eliminate any and all stigma associated with handouts, including the personal shame of being unable to provide for one's family. This is where the disagreement lies. Not in the actual help, but in those who accept this as a replacement for actual care of their own family.

BernardM · #65 Jul 12, '12, 9:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ringil

The Rightists and their social Darwinism. It's this attitude that should elicit the shame.

It all goes back to the Protestant Work Ethic- Worthy and Unworthy poor.

But yet us conservatives regularly outspend you high and mighty "Social Worker" types when it comes to giving up their income after taxes to help others. Amazingly there has never been rampant starvation in the United States even during famines and economic depressions. Do you know why? I will give you a hint, it's not social workers.

Do you know the difference between people like me and people like you? You will do what you're paid to do and refer them to programs that you sacrifice nothing for so you do not care if they take advantage of it. People like me who give something of their own to help people are much less likely to accept being taken advantage of. Please go ahead and get on your soap box and preach how receiving shekels for non-charity is infinitely morally superior to sacrificing of yourself to help others.

austenbosten · #66 Jul 12, '12, 10:42 pm

Back to the original question I posed

NOT DEMONIZING OF THE RIGHT OR LEFT

Does the government spend to much on SNAP, that it literally has to advertise and get people to hold parties in order to promote SNAP as if its something people should be on?

Scott_Lafrance · #67 Jul 13, '12, 5:05 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by austenbosten

Yeah I'm not joking

So a question to all of you....are we spending too much on food stamps that our government literally has to beg people to take it?

I am of the mind that we need to end all federal entitlement programs.

Scott_Lafrance · #68 Jul 13, '12, 5:05 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suudy

The point is that the government is incapable of charity. It is an impossibility. What is the root word of charity? Caritas, which means "love". Is the government capable of love? Coercive "charity" is not charity, but slavery. True charity is only found in acts of love. What act of love is there in Uncle Sam, through the power of taxation, providing funds for food?

There is no disagreement on this point. Prideful neglect of one's family is problematic, and indeed "hardly virtuous at all."

However, there is a subtlety here that isn't being express by either side. Acceptance of charity (real charity, given out of love) is not a source of shame. But there is some sense of shame associated with being unable to provide for one's family. And I think that is appropriate. It is not prideful to feel ashamed of being unable to personally provide for one's own family. And that "virtuous 'shame' " is what motivates people to work way from needing handouts.

I think the point here is that there are some who do not see accepting charity (or government) handouts as indicative of the inability to provide for one's family. Indeed, there seems to be a push to eliminate any and all stigma associated with handouts, including the personal shame of being unable to provide for one's family. This is where the disagreement lies. Not in the actual help, but in those who accept this as a replacement for actual care of their own family.

This. +1

SamH · #69 Jul 13, '12, 5:28 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by austenbosten

Does the government spend to much on SNAP, that it literally has to advertise and get people to hold parties in order to promote SNAP as if its something people should be on?

As pointed out by BlueEyedLady its helps people plan for their future.

Scott_Lafrance · #70 Jul 13, '12, 5:30 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamH

As pointed out by BlueEyedLady its helps people plan for their future.

Food stamps are supposed to be a "social safety net", not a retirement planning tool.

stevegravy · #71 Jul 13, '12, 5:47 am

As I posted in another forum, there is a fundamental contradiction in federal government policy. One agency is promoting food stamps and another post signs in national parks ,”Don’t Feed the Animals.”

Before excoriating me for daring to compare food stamp recipients to animals let me say that some of the recipients may be no better than brute beast, not all, and that I do not oppose all government handouts. There are folks who are indeed needy who may not be able to avail themselves of charity where it is available, hence an opportunity for official intervention. However, to paraphrase LBJ broadcasting bread on the waters will only attract sharks and that is what is happening.

Yes, some folks in extreme duress need aid, however our government is creating a class of feral citizens incapable of fending for themselves. They learn from the cradle they need not act on anything because Uncle Sam will drive by and give them food, clothing and a place to sleep. All they need to do is go out and satidfy their own base pleasures whether it is sex drugs or rock'n'roll.

Public assistance is a double edge sword that may very well ruin the ones it is intended to help.

**estesbob** · #72 Jul 13, '12, 9:35 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevegravy

As I posted in another forum, there is a fundamental contradiction in federal government policy. One agency is promoting food stamps and another post signs in national parks ,”Don’t Feed the Animals.”

Before excoriating me for daring to compare food stamp recipients to animals let me say that some of the recipients may be no better than brute beast, not all, and that I do not oppose all government handouts. There are folks who are indeed needy who may not be able to avail themselves of charity where it is available, hence an opportunity for official intervention. However, to paraphrase LBJ broadcasting bread on the waters will only attract sharks and that is what is happening.

Yes, some folks in extreme duress need aid, however our government is creating a class of feral citizens incapable of fending for themselves. They learn from the cradle they need not act on anything because Uncle Sam will drive by and give them food, clothing and a place to sleep. All they need to do is go out and satidfy their own base pleasures whether it is sex drugs or rock'n'roll.

Public assistance is a double edge sword that may very well ruin the ones it is intended to help.

I think that SNAP is a worthwhile program but needs a lot more oversight. It has increased far faster than the poverty rate and the unemployment rate since Obama took office. It should be for those who find themselves in a bad spot and its purpose should be help them get back on their feet. The ultimate goal of SNAP should be to get people off of SNAP.

Having said that whether or not one supports SNAP or any other Govt social program is a morally neutral position. You can not fulfill your obligation to help the poor and needy by supporting Govt social programs nor by voting for someone who promises to take other peoples money and do it for you.

ringil · #73 Jul 13, '12, 9:48 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BernardM

But yet us conservatives regularly outspend you high and mighty "Social Worker" types when it comes to giving up their income after taxes to help others. Amazingly there has never been rampant starvation in the United States even during famines and economic depressions. Do you know why? I will give you a hint, it's not social workers.

Do you know the difference between people like me and people like you? You will do what you're paid to do and refer them to programs that you sacrifice nothing for so you do not care if they take advantage of it. People like me who give something of their own to help people are much less likely to accept being taken advantage of. Please go ahead and get on your soap box and preach how receiving shekels for non-charity is infinitely morally superior to sacrificing of yourself to help others.

Social Workers like myself have graduate degrees and post-grad licenses and receive a pitance as salary for this ammount of education. We are called to the helping profession because we care about people. Many of us take pro-bono work, volunteer, and work in Catholic agencies and non-profits instead of going into private practice where income would be much more significant. In fact, it is expected with the tenets of the profession to provide pro-bono work.

Social Workers provide referrals to BOTH government AND private resources to help folks meet their needs.

Your implications of my field are offensive and demonstrate a gross ignorance of my field.

Ringil (Social Worker "Type")

ringil · #74 Jul 13, '12, 9:57 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

Food stamps are supposed to be a "social safety net", not a retirement planning tool.

I would certainly agrre, however that is not the implication of the article.

These"parties" I'll play the game and call them that, are for those who are meant for folks who are currently in a state where they would benefit fromt he SNAP program.

iamrefreshed · #75 Jul 13, '12, 10:01 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ringil

I would certainly agrre, however that is not the implication of the article.

These"parties" I'll play the game and call them that, are for those who are meant for folks who are currently in a state where they would benefit fromt he SNAP program.

If you can throw a party with food you don't belong on food stamps.