Full Version: Food for thought...
America's Debate > Archive > Policy Debate Archive > [A] Domestic Policy > [A] Poverty and the Homeless
In the neigborhood across town they have a big subdivision with sidewalks and parks. There is lots of pretty green trees and flowers planted everywhere. The people in that neighborhood take walks and play tennis in the community tennis courts or swim in the community pool. That neighborhood is located within walking distance of the community center.
Where the poor people live there are large five lane roads with no sidewalks. There are no trees, just broken down closed businesses and concrete. There is no bus line or way to get to the community center. There is nothing to see when you take a walk except things you probably don't want to see anyway. Walking around here after dark might be safer than in downtown Atlanta, but it isn't safe to walk alone.
But most of the people that I see who are poor are walking from the grocery store to their house, because they can't afford to own a car. This would seem to argue against obesity, so why are people becoming obese? Are they getting obese because they are using food stamps to buy particular types of candy bars?
The grocery store seems to be teeming with new kinds of microwavable fast foods. Maybe that's because no one has time to cook anymore, I don't know. But people do tend to buy what is in the store, and the more of it devoted to junk food, the more junk food you are likley to buy.
I don't really care if I can't buy a hershey bar with food stamps. It really isn't something I buy anyway. Although since this discussion started it has made me more interested in them (the candy you can't have is always the candy you want right:).. It's the policy I have a problem with. When people are suffering, that isn't the time to put your thumb on their necks, that's the time to lift them up.
I didn't just decide that I was "entitled" to something if I became impoverished after the fact, I have had a lifelong belief that when I paid my taxes that I wanted my money to go to the commonwealth. Taxes, to me, are what I pay into the til so that everyone can have an opportunity to live a decent life. If they can't work because of some illness, or they are elderly and need help, or they are young and want to get an education, I always thought that it was my obligation as a citizen to pay into the general fund.
Now my government wants to go off to war and rebuild Iraqs schools while mine falls into disrepair. they want to take all of this money to pay for the military and to give tax cuts to corporations. Since citizens don't have control over that they turn their resentment toward the group that is least able to respond. No program has been subject to so much scrutiny!
If people turned their ire toward some of the real fraud that went on in government we might have some success, but no one can do that so they turn their eyes on the poor and try to control what people eat as a way to make themselves feel like they have control over their tax dollars. Your beef isn't really with the poor when you think about it. Your beef is with an unresponsive government and with a growing population of people who can't work because there is no job creation. When 300 people apply for a postal clerk position we have a problem of a much more serious magnitude than whether or not people buy a bag of chips with their food stamps.
Where the poor people live there are large five lane roads with no sidewalks. There are no trees, just broken down closed businesses and concrete. There is no bus line or way to get to the community center. There is nothing to see when you take a walk except things you probably don't want to see anyway. Walking around here after dark might be safer than in downtown Atlanta, but it isn't safe to walk alone.
But most of the people that I see who are poor are walking from the grocery store to their house, because they can't afford to own a car. This would seem to argue against obesity, so why are people becoming obese? Are they getting obese because they are using food stamps to buy particular types of candy bars?
The grocery store seems to be teeming with new kinds of microwavable fast foods. Maybe that's because no one has time to cook anymore, I don't know. But people do tend to buy what is in the store, and the more of it devoted to junk food, the more junk food you are likley to buy.
I don't really care if I can't buy a hershey bar with food stamps. It really isn't something I buy anyway. Although since this discussion started it has made me more interested in them (the candy you can't have is always the candy you want right:).. It's the policy I have a problem with. When people are suffering, that isn't the time to put your thumb on their necks, that's the time to lift them up.
I didn't just decide that I was "entitled" to something if I became impoverished after the fact, I have had a lifelong belief that when I paid my taxes that I wanted my money to go to the commonwealth. Taxes, to me, are what I pay into the til so that everyone can have an opportunity to live a decent life. If they can't work because of some illness, or they are elderly and need help, or they are young and want to get an education, I always thought that it was my obligation as a citizen to pay into the general fund.
Now my government wants to go off to war and rebuild Iraqs schools while mine falls into disrepair. they want to take all of this money to pay for the military and to give tax cuts to corporations. Since citizens don't have control over that they turn their resentment toward the group that is least able to respond. No program has been subject to so much scrutiny!
If people turned their ire toward some of the real fraud that went on in government we might have some success, but no one can do that so they turn their eyes on the poor and try to control what people eat as a way to make themselves feel like they have control over their tax dollars. Your beef isn't really with the poor when you think about it. Your beef is with an unresponsive government and with a growing population of people who can't work because there is no job creation. When 300 people apply for a postal clerk position we have a problem of a much more serious magnitude than whether or not people buy a bag of chips with their food stamps.
Heart nice post.
For those worried about their tax dollars, heres a site for you!
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer
Citizens against government waste.
When you start looking at the millions of your tax dollars going to special programs and pet projects, often those which will bear an officials name, payoffs to cronies or personal investments, fix ups for their alma mater, or projects which are obviously fraudulent, its makes hearts last comments ring too true.
There are very few of your tax dollars going for candy bars. In the year 2000, only an estimated 6% of all income collected by the government went to the major means-tested entitlements of Food Stamps and food aid to Puerto Rico, Supplemental Security Income, Child Nutrition, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and veterans’ pensions.
Although you will see articles out there that social spending is 55% of gov't outlay, that includes Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment.
In contrast:
'For fiscal 2002, ( i cant get totals for 2000) appropriators stuck 20.1 billion dollars to the taxpayers for pork projects, according to CAGW who makes these judgements by the following, of seven criteria, but most satisfy at least two:
Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
Not specifically authorized;
Not competitively awarded;
Not requested by the President;
Greatly exceeds the President's budget request or the previous year's funding;
Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
Serves only a local or special interest. '
With that in mind, maybe its correct that we should be looking at the real abusers of the system.
For those worried about their tax dollars, heres a site for you!
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer
Citizens against government waste.
When you start looking at the millions of your tax dollars going to special programs and pet projects, often those which will bear an officials name, payoffs to cronies or personal investments, fix ups for their alma mater, or projects which are obviously fraudulent, its makes hearts last comments ring too true.
There are very few of your tax dollars going for candy bars. In the year 2000, only an estimated 6% of all income collected by the government went to the major means-tested entitlements of Food Stamps and food aid to Puerto Rico, Supplemental Security Income, Child Nutrition, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and veterans’ pensions.
Although you will see articles out there that social spending is 55% of gov't outlay, that includes Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment.
In contrast:
'For fiscal 2002, ( i cant get totals for 2000) appropriators stuck 20.1 billion dollars to the taxpayers for pork projects, according to CAGW who makes these judgements by the following, of seven criteria, but most satisfy at least two:
Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
Not specifically authorized;
Not competitively awarded;
Not requested by the President;
Greatly exceeds the President's budget request or the previous year's funding;
Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
Serves only a local or special interest. '
With that in mind, maybe its correct that we should be looking at the real abusers of the system.
QUOTE
I do not see any portion of my tax dollars as a charitable donation, my charitable donations are in fact tax deductable. There is a very clear line between the two for me.
Allow me to blur it up for you.
Donations are tax deductable because taxes are used to better society. So are donations, all you did was cut out the middle man, and told him you did by declaring it so he gives you a break. In addition, by paying taxes we are feeding the poor and keeping them, at the very least, somewhat content. This makes society better because we don't have a bunch of poor people who are mad because they are eating well.
BTW, that was a great post heart, I now know why I can't find the community center.
I agree with Heart and Artemise- we certainly have bigger fish to fry! LOL
That being said though- whenever you accept money from the goverment, or even private individuals, you also accept the conditions that come with it, even when they invade your privacy or are just a general pain in the butt!
I deal with goverment backed private loans on my real estate ventures- and though the goverment has never actually given me a dollar- they did guarantee the loan from the private institution that I was borrowing from, both the borrower AND the goverment had hundreds of restrictions, if not thousands, I had to live by, then literally had hundreds of pages of forms to fill out (even more before Gore did his "re-inventing gov't" thing- I will always give Al a thumbs up props for that one!!)
So- if you don't like restrictions on spending your money- you will have to earn it LOL
That being said though- whenever you accept money from the goverment, or even private individuals, you also accept the conditions that come with it, even when they invade your privacy or are just a general pain in the butt!
I deal with goverment backed private loans on my real estate ventures- and though the goverment has never actually given me a dollar- they did guarantee the loan from the private institution that I was borrowing from, both the borrower AND the goverment had hundreds of restrictions, if not thousands, I had to live by, then literally had hundreds of pages of forms to fill out (even more before Gore did his "re-inventing gov't" thing- I will always give Al a thumbs up props for that one!!)
So- if you don't like restrictions on spending your money- you will have to earn it LOL
QUOTE
Allow me to blur it up for you.
Donations are tax deductable because taxes are used to better society. So are donations, all you did was cut out the middle man, and told him you did by declaring it so he gives you a break.
Donations are tax deductable because taxes are used to better society. So are donations, all you did was cut out the middle man, and told him you did by declaring it so he gives you a break.
Or one could say that charity really should be in the hands of the charitable not in the government therefore the propensity for charity is encouraged. The Free Market system operates from freedom of choice of the individual. What is described as charity intended taxes falls more in keeping with socialism.
QUOTE
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dockyards, and other needful Buildings; -- And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dockyards, and other needful Buildings; -- And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
When they said to provide for the general welfare I doubt they meant to create a welfare state. I view taxes as a necessary evil to provide infra structure and necessary services that are meant to benefit the society as a whole. This is why we all have a say in how the dollars are spent. There is a benefit to assisting those in poverty, the purpose should be to lift them from poverty and in so doing create a self sufficient contributing member of society. Welfare as it exists today is to a greater extent, oppressive rather than productive.
Wow, this became a pretty lively debate 
Is the State of Minnesota within their rights to restrict the types of food that are purchased with taxpayer-funded food stamp program?
Within reason, yes. We place restriction on purchases with food stamps already as it relates to tobacco and alcohol. I do share Quark's reservation that such a restriction may lay precedent to further, less justifiable exclusions. While I will admit the enforcement would be a tad hairy, I would rather see a restriction as it relates to the quantity or percentage of purchase. For example, if someone buys $20 worth of foodstuffs and buys a 20oz coke, I would think that's acceptable as opposed to someone buying a gallon of milk and $18 worth of junk food. Admittedly that may be a horror to enforce, but figured I would toss it out there.
If this program were implemented, would it increase a poor individual's likelihood of applying for food stamps, decrease a poor individual's likelihood of applying for food stamps, or make no significant change in a poor individual's likelihood of applying for food stamps?
I don't believe it would have a chilling effect on food stamp applications. I think you either need them or you don't. I seriously doubt most facing that life situation would refuse assistance because snickers is an excluded item.
That being said, my general opinion of this thread/debate is, as others have posted as well, that there are far far greater fish to fry (figured I'd stick with the food motif) as it relates to providing accountability for our entitlement programs than worrying about junk food at this time. If that were the only thing we had to worry about, my confidence in our government would be through the roof.
Doc
Is the State of Minnesota within their rights to restrict the types of food that are purchased with taxpayer-funded food stamp program?
Within reason, yes. We place restriction on purchases with food stamps already as it relates to tobacco and alcohol. I do share Quark's reservation that such a restriction may lay precedent to further, less justifiable exclusions. While I will admit the enforcement would be a tad hairy, I would rather see a restriction as it relates to the quantity or percentage of purchase. For example, if someone buys $20 worth of foodstuffs and buys a 20oz coke, I would think that's acceptable as opposed to someone buying a gallon of milk and $18 worth of junk food. Admittedly that may be a horror to enforce, but figured I would toss it out there.
If this program were implemented, would it increase a poor individual's likelihood of applying for food stamps, decrease a poor individual's likelihood of applying for food stamps, or make no significant change in a poor individual's likelihood of applying for food stamps?
I don't believe it would have a chilling effect on food stamp applications. I think you either need them or you don't. I seriously doubt most facing that life situation would refuse assistance because snickers is an excluded item.
That being said, my general opinion of this thread/debate is, as others have posted as well, that there are far far greater fish to fry (figured I'd stick with the food motif) as it relates to providing accountability for our entitlement programs than worrying about junk food at this time. If that were the only thing we had to worry about, my confidence in our government would be through the roof.
Doc
Did you know you can buy a harpoon with food stamps in Alaska...no, I'm not kidding. Maybe we should give everyone fishing rods?
I saw this MN food stamp news story on Fox a couple of days ago. No one mentioned that you would be able to buy chips, a kit-kat bar or even the snickers bar. They portrayed it as if food stamp recipients would NOT be able to buy junk food, period.
Then the anchor said, "well, we would really like these people to buy fresh fruits and vegetables". I was yelling at the TV "Yes, so would I!!"
Then the guy from MN was asked if they "have a large problem with people buying soda and candy with food stamps, and how this came to their attention". He said he didn't know if it was a problem or not. That there "may" have been a call to the MN department of health and that's why they started this idea, but that he didn't know if anyone had actually complained. They just decided that this would be a good idea.
So, they don't know if they have a problem. They don't know if any member of the public saw someone buying large amounts of candy or soda and complained. They just think that it would be "a good idea to fight obesity".
Then, they flashed some statistics, 21,500,000 in this country receive food stamps, with means they live at or below the poverty line and they have applied and been approved through the means-testing process.
They said about 255,000 people receive food stamps in MN? Geez, I didn't think they had such a poverty problem there. They also said the average benefit was $65. So these people must be working or it is one child they are collecting food stamps for.
Basically, since no one has investigated this and found it to be a problem. Since there has been no public complaint or outcry. They just decided to make a grandstanding new bill...unbelievalbe!
If you don't know where you started, then how can you measure the effects of the program? I doubt they will, I doubt they even want to, they just want to pretend they did something.
I saw this MN food stamp news story on Fox a couple of days ago. No one mentioned that you would be able to buy chips, a kit-kat bar or even the snickers bar. They portrayed it as if food stamp recipients would NOT be able to buy junk food, period.
Then the anchor said, "well, we would really like these people to buy fresh fruits and vegetables". I was yelling at the TV "Yes, so would I!!"
Then the guy from MN was asked if they "have a large problem with people buying soda and candy with food stamps, and how this came to their attention". He said he didn't know if it was a problem or not. That there "may" have been a call to the MN department of health and that's why they started this idea, but that he didn't know if anyone had actually complained. They just decided that this would be a good idea.
So, they don't know if they have a problem. They don't know if any member of the public saw someone buying large amounts of candy or soda and complained. They just think that it would be "a good idea to fight obesity".
Then, they flashed some statistics, 21,500,000 in this country receive food stamps, with means they live at or below the poverty line and they have applied and been approved through the means-testing process.
They said about 255,000 people receive food stamps in MN? Geez, I didn't think they had such a poverty problem there. They also said the average benefit was $65. So these people must be working or it is one child they are collecting food stamps for.
Basically, since no one has investigated this and found it to be a problem. Since there has been no public complaint or outcry. They just decided to make a grandstanding new bill...unbelievalbe!
If you don't know where you started, then how can you measure the effects of the program? I doubt they will, I doubt they even want to, they just want to pretend they did something.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.