"Does this make sense to you? "We should be doing everything we can to get people who qualify for food stamps on the program."? If so, why? If they are getting by, why would we strive to get them hooked to the system? I agree that the GOP has it's problems also. Right now we are talking food programs." G2AMN Publius Food Stamps
It doesn't take half a brain to figure out why we should get aid to those who need it. Kids can't learn if they are starving but of course you would rather give our money to those who don't need it. It is a very effective stimulus returning $1.73 into the economy for every dollar spent vs $.29 for the Bush tax cuts. The only reason we are talking about food stamps is that the Republicans will not pay their own way. They spend like drunken sailors and then expect to cut aid to the poor when the bill comes due. Lenzy1000
"This is why the Public Schools provide free breakfasts and lunches in many needy neighborhoods. Apparently the food stamp money does not always make it into the kid's stomach. By the way, I fully support rescinding all of the Bush tax cuts and believe they should have never been made. This means raising the taxes on the poor also, and getting rid of the tax credit. Are you ok with that?" G2A
Monday, June 11, 2012
Gov't Should Encourage Dependency?
As usual when I am looking for something totally different, I stopped by MN Publius. Apparently they believe that not only should the government provide a safety net for the less fortunate. They believe we should also provide bonuses to those that convince more people to climb into the net. See below for more. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Because I know nothing about "food stamps" I looked up eligibility
It seems to me if I was trying to support a family of 4 on $1800 a month or less I would be cutting some corners on nutrition, prescriptions, doctor and dental visits, perhaps not keeping up on all bills.
I think it is a good think to try to enroll all eligible families rather than have people going hungry or foregoing medical care.
When should these people take on responsibility for their own lives?
Who would you pay to find these people and convince them to sign up?
Won't encouraging "taking handouts" encourage dependency and reduce self reliance and self esteem? (ie lead folks towards generational poverty) Wiki Welfare and Poverty
Know anyone who is quitting their job to get food stamps?
--Hiram
once upon a time I had occasion to check into my own eligibility for food stamps. I concluded that I would indeed be eligible if I did just three things:
1. Rented or bought a new house that was bigger than I needed or could afford,
2. Traded in my used but perfectly working automobile for a new one (on credit, of course), and
3. Spent most of my savings on a glorious vacation or luxury home furnishings.
I checked because a man from our church had applied and was told he was NOT eligible. He had broken both legs and could not work and so the church looked after him and his family until he was, quite literally, back on his feet and able to work again (and ONLY until then). Now, which approach do you think fosters dependency and which is an example of responsible behavior from all parties involved?
J. Ewing
John, I don't see your connection between someone using the program and someone getting "hooked on the system". The average duration on SNAP (supplemental nutrition assistance program) is 9 months. And 2/3 of those who receive that benefit are children, elderly, or disabled. So should we have deep fears of children and seniors become dependent on food?
And J, I think your understanding of eligibility is flawed regarding the luxurious houses, fabulous furnishings, and sweet rides. SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with assets of no more than $2000. The average SNAP household still has assets of only $333. Additionally, the SNAP asset limit of $2,000 has not been adjusted for inflation in 25 years and has fallen by 48% in real terms since 1986.
Also interested in if your church is ready/willing to take on the care and feeding for ALL the hungry and needy (ie, the least among us. . .). As is often the case private charity is great, but it's incapable of providing a comprehensive safety net.
--Annie
Annie, I said that the rules may have changed, but at the time I checked the income limit was NET, after housing and car payments were removed. Thus the three conditions-- big house, big car, spend don't save. As for my church taking care of ALL the poor, I would say we could take care of all the poor in our neighborhood IF (and only if) you remove the freeloaders, ne'er-do-wells and those who have become dependent on the government handout, which government encourages.
J. Ewing
Healthy America
See pg 11 for some confusing info.
Pg 25 is also interesting
Forbes Expanding Welfare Empire
It looks like their are a lot of programs. I may never figure out how long someone can stay in the systems. Then I suppose there are State programs also.
TANF Report to Congress
Wiki TANF
Looks to me like the evidence is clear. Government encourages dependency until it starts encouraging work. What I did not see in the wiki article was the fact that the five-year lifetime cap on receiving benefits has been officially waived in many states so that the dependence can continue. Even at that, welfare reform has reduced caseloads by two thirds. I believe that when Wisconsin, the first of the states to receive federal waivers and implement welfare-to-work programs, the caseload dropped 20% immediately as "freeloaders" (my word not theirs) left the system. Before the federal reform caught up, Wisconsin's caseload had dropped by 80% and folks like me were trying to come to grips with how to help those remaining. Certainly there were some people for whom great effort would need to be expended to make them less dependent and some for whom self-sufficiency would never arrive. But our conclusion was that some portion of this 20% was made up of people who had been dependent on government aid so long that they had been robbed of their work ethic and felt entitled to their government handouts.
That's where private charity is superior, in individually sorting out those who just need a loving hand up from those needing some tough love.
J. Ewing
I get the frustration with dependency on safety net programs but think it is mostly unavoidable. The best solution is an economy that provides more and better jobs, which is why the Clinton welfare reform in the 90's was pretty successful.
Maybe church and community based programs should focus on increasing the skills of some of the recipients. My church has some ties to the Jeremiah Program where teaching self suffficiency is a long and costly process.
Clinton finally signed off on welfare reform after promising it and then having the Republican Congress jam it down his neck on the third try. There wasn't much "carrot," in it, though, as I recall. It was a 2-year limit, followed by a 5-year lifetime limit. When cut off from dependency-enabling government handouts, somewhere between half and 3/4 of current recipients find work. Hunger is a marvelous motivator and a free check from government isn't.
I have somewhat the same take on what churches and private charity do, too. Most of what they do is to simply give a "hand up"-- keeping people in food clothing and shelter WHILE they get their lives squared away, find work, etc. Catholic transitional housing and our own battered women's housing programs are similar in that, though quite different in clientele and the problems addressed. Yes, helping with "life skills" is part of it, but job training isn't our expertise. The most help comes from within people themselves, once the dependency-- be it government handouts, drugs or abusive husbands-- ends.
J. Ewing
That is kind of what I am thinking. I used to try to help people that were not ready to be helped, and this went NO WHERE... And it truly pissed them off or they took advantage of it.
Now I wait until they accept that something has to change and they come find me. Then I can help them with resources and guidance.
Being hooked in a co-dependency loop harms all participants in different ways. Wiki Codependency
Post a Comment