US Bishops: Save SNAP

[99th_Monkey]

Really? Which ones on AM radio? What did they say, and how did they demonize those who need assistance? And why didn’t you specify you were talking about radio hosts and not your fellow posters on CAF? You really should back up your accusations.

Ishii

If you want to start a thread on that topic I will contribute my thoughts.

 

[ishii]

If you want to start a thread on that topic I will contribute my thoughts.

You already did contribute your thoughts. I was merely asking you to back them up. I notice that people unable to back up their points often fall back on “its off topic” excuse.

Ishii

 

[cheezey]

I’d like to see the food stamp program totally revamped. No pre-packaged foods, no pop, no candy, no pre-packaged cakes, cookies, or other health destroying, diabetes creating junk food.

Poor Americans make the worst food choices, are the fattest, and need education and guidance, not a carte blanche to buy more junk at the supermarket. The only thing they are starving for is a balanced diet, which is totally doable on food stamps, I used them myself for four kids while going through nursing school.

I am late to respond to this. (Afraid of losing my pc!)
In a way, I’d love to see cookies, et al on the hit list.
I ‘binged’ MA SNAP and found what I saw when I first received food stamps:

fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm

**“Junk Food” & Luxury Items
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) defines eligible food as any food or food product for home consumption and also includes seeds and plants which produce food for consumption by SNAP households. The Act precludes the following items from being purchased with SNAP benefits: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food and any food sold for on-premises consumption. Nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, medicines and vitamins, household supplies, grooming items, and cosmetics, also are ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits.

Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items

Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome. Further detailed information about the challenges of restricting the use of SNAP benefits can be found here…"
**
I understand the mindset of excluding cookies, truly. I wanted this too til I was in dire straits…
When and if I was lucky to have $2 on me, a burger from the dollar menu and a coffee w cream filled me up far more so than a healthy apple and water. Statistically you may be correct, I should have gained bad weight for this. Even with cruddy food I went down to 92 lbs (because of stress, probably). I agree that many could make better choices, but many cannot. I did what I had to do to feel full. Believe me, I would have preferred the apple and water. And man oh man, do I hate cream in anything.
And when one’s life is miserable to the point of wanting to die, a cookie gives an illogical but understandable sense of fleeting comfort.

 

[SMGS127]

Yes, I found the statement to be pretty outrageous and of course you are correct. But I surprised to see that coming from that particular poster.

Ishii

I do not view, as I said in the post, economic Republicanism as a greater evil than abortion. But it is an ideology without a basis in reality, an idea that if we just go to extremely minimal tax rates, everyone will start giving to charity. This is not the case. It is true that people spend their own money more efficiently. It is not true that they spend it on the common good though. Our culture is full of greed and evil, and it is surprising that anyone who sees the evil in our culture can turn around and argue that very low tax rates would lead to enough donations to charities of any kind to make up the lost revenue to the government.

There is waste in our government, but it is nowhere near the waste seen on a daily basis in our culture. To argue that our culture, who is bound to and idolizes its wealth, will donate it at the same rates as the government, who has no care about its wealth, is crazy.

Then there’s the fact that this bill mandates that mothers of small children work in order to receive food stamps for their children (see my posted quote from Rep. Richard Hanna [R- NY]). This is what I was specifically referencing by “forced starvation of children,” but economic Republicanism (note how I refuse to say conservatism) is an ideology that values gains of personal wealth over any common societal good in the name of supposedly curbing waste (and ironically, doing quite the opposite). It is definitely an evil in my mind.

So yes, I go pro-life/anti-birth control [stopping genocide] > national security [protection from death] > economic non-Republicanism [protection from forced suffering of our vulnerable poor and children] > changing gay “marriage”/divorce laws [protection of adults from harming their own souls].

Oh, and by the way, taking the whole country hostage on threatened defaults and forcing expensive interest rate hikes in the name of obtaining cuts smaller than the interest rates you forced on our children is also a very evil act.

 

[billcu1]

I’m pretty conservative politically but this is just plain unreasonable. I’m glad the Bishops are standing up. Complex problems, like SNAP abuse cannot be solved by simple answers. It’s philosophically illogical. This must just be some stupid political move. Well their not getting any votes here. You don’t cut funding and solve a problem with a few abusers. That is indeed lame.

 

[polki]

I’d like to see the food stamp program totally revamped. No pre-packaged foods, no pop, no candy, no pre-packaged cakes, cookies, or other health destroying, diabetes creating junk food.

Poor Americans make the worst food choices, are the fattest, and need education and guidance, not a carte blanche to buy more junk at the supermarket. The only thing they are starving for is a balanced diet, which is totally doable on food stamps, I used them myself for four kids while going through nursing school.

Shouldn’t Michelle Obama be working on this? What has she been up to lately? Maybe let’s get her on board.

 

[ishii]

I do not view, as I said in the post, economic Republicanism as a greater evil than abortion. But it is an ideology without a basis in reality, an idea that if we just go to extremely minimal tax rates, everyone will start giving to charity. This is not the case. It is true that people spend their own money more efficiently. It is not true that they spend it on the common good though. Our culture is full of greed and evil, and it is surprising that anyone who sees the evil in our culture can turn around and argue that very low tax rates would lead to enough donations to charities of any kind to make up the lost revenue to the government…

SMGS, Your post is a total straw man. No one says that “if we just go to minimal tax rates everyone will start giving to charity.” Not that simple. However, I know that I would be giving more to charity if I didn’t have to pay so much in taxes. I already give to charity - but I would give more. Regarding, “Economic Republicanism” : there is no such ideology. There are conservative ideologies which offer a variety of views on how our economic system should be - generally pro-free market. Also, conservatives differ on how much should be spent on the safety net, welfare, etc. Those of a more libertarian bent are more likely to say, “cut the entitlements and eventually eliminate them.” Many conservatives say that private organizations, charities, Churches, etc. should take over helping those in need. Some of them are in the Republican party - as are some of the more libertarian types like Rand Paul and especially his father in the congress (still?) Ron Paul.

There is waste in our government, but it is nowhere near the waste seen on a daily basis in our culture. To argue that our culture, who is bound to and idolizes its wealth, will donate it at the same rates as the government, who has no care about its wealth, is crazy…

Its not just about waste - its also about the effect that the entitlements which largely started in the 60’s as the “war on poverty” actually created more poverty and contributed to the factors which are the leading indicators of poverty such as single motherhood.

Then there’s the fact that this bill mandates that mothers of small children work in order to receive food stamps for their children (see my posted quote from Rep. Richard Hanna [R- NY]). This is what I was specifically referencing by “forced starvation of children,” but economic Republicanism (note how I refuse to say conservatism) is an ideology that values gains of personal wealth over any common societal good in the name of supposedly curbing waste (and ironically, doing quite the opposite). It is definitely an evil in my mind…

Why not? My wife works in order to help feed the family. Would you rather she quit work and go on foodstamps? If a mother refuses to work to feed her family, or if she had all sorts of kids by different men, then and she loses her foodstamps, how is that “forced starvation” ? Forced starvation is nothing more than hyperbole.

So yes, I go pro-life/anti-birth control [stopping genocide] > national security [protection from death] > economic non-Republicanism [protection from forced suffering of our vulnerable poor and children] > changing gay “marriage”/divorce laws [protection of adults from harming their own souls]…

I admire your stands. But I don’t think slowing the rate of increase in food stamp funding is “forced suffering.” Perhaps you can explain how that works? How does a women with kids getting her foodstamps taken away, forced starvation? It would only result in starvation if the mother did nothing to feed her children - not get a job, not seek other areas for food - foodbanks, etc. In the state of Washington, foodstamps are available at the state level, and let me tell you all kinds of people of dubious need levels collect them.

Oh, and by the way, taking the whole country hostage on threatened defaults and forcing expensive interest rate hikes in the name of obtaining cuts smaller than the interest rates you forced on our children is also a very evil act.

You need to explain that last point further - you lost me.

Overall - you engage in straw men and hyperbole. You can do much better than that, I think. Republicans aren’t immune to criticism, but if you say they are “forcing children to starve” you are playing into liberal hysteria.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I’m pretty conservative politically but this is just plain unreasonable. I’m glad the Bishops are standing up. Complex problems, like SNAP abuse cannot be solved by simple answers. It’s philosophically illogical. This must just be some stupid political move. Well their not getting any votes here. You don’t cut funding and solve a problem with a few abusers. That is indeed lame.

How is it a cut? Its slowing the rate of increase in funding. You realize that right? If so, you should quit misrepresenting the truth. Its not right to misrepresent in order to score cheap political points.

Ishii

 

[seekerz]

If the Republicans had said they want to pass a law that roots out waste fraud and abuse then people would applaud that. But when they just bluntly say they want to cut the spending they open themselves up to Democrat lies and slander.

How is it lies and slander if you admit that they said the wrong thing? And what matters to the truth: what they say about the law or what they mean to achieve with it?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Maybe the Bishops would do better to tell Obama to stop destroying the economy so people would not need food stamps in the first place.

Are the Bishops aware the Obama runs ads encouraging people to get on food stamps like its the thing to do? Obama is creating a food stamp nation.

This!

 

[Jeanne_S]

I’m not doubting your claim, but can you provide more info to substantiate the “Obama run ads encouraging people to get on food stamps” because I haven’t seen them and can’t find anything on them.

Thanks

Really…there are billboards here in Denver promoting food stamps!

 

[seekerz]

How is it a cut? Its slowing the rate of increase in funding. You realize that right? If so, you should quit misrepresenting the truth. Its not right to misrepresent in order to score cheap political points.

Ishii

How is it a cut rather than a slowing of increased funding? Let me give that a shot just with my basic math skills.

If an institution houses 100 people today and has a budget of $100,000, a projected yearly population increase of 10% would mean 110 people in 2014, requiring a budget of $110, 000. So if the administration were to decide to slow that projected increase in spending, to say, $105,000 it would mean that when the additional 10 people come, there would be less than the current $10,000 being spent per person. That means less of something/s: food, amenities, security…per individual, which = a cut, unless we also estimate that next year the institution’s population will remain at 2013 levels, in which case it would = a raise.

 

[seekerz]

Really…there are billboards here in Denver promoting food stamps!

What’s wrong with billboards making people aware of the assistance they might need? Awareness does not equal eligibility. Are there not billboards in Denver promoting hospitals, clinics or various types of shelters…?

 

[bellasbane]

How is it a cut? Its slowing the rate of increase in funding. You realize that right? If so, you should quit misrepresenting the truth. Its not right to misrepresent in order to score cheap political points.

Ishii

I can never understand why some folks are so willing to repeat GOP talking points like “it is not a cut - we are just slowing the rate of increase in funding” - that is so insulting to anyone with any level of intelligence.

Arbitrarily limiting the amount of funding for SNAP does nothing to slow the actual rate of food insecurity in the United States. All it does is force more people to make due with the same pool of money - which means that either services get cut or people get cut. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 92% of the money for SNAP went directly to benefits that households used to purchase food - that means there is not much waste in the program.

The only way to fix the problem of food insecurity is by strengthening the economy - something the GOP seems willing to throw under the bus with their latest move to shut down the government over funding Obamacare and threatening not to raise the debt limit.

 

[Jeanne_S]

What’s wrong with billboards making people aware of the assistance they might need? Awareness does not equal eligibility. Are there not billboards in Denver promoting hospitals, clinics or various types of shelters…?

Surely you jest?This is an active attempt to lure folks into the system,even when they aren’t in real need.Obama is all about creating gov’t dependency.What was intended to be a safety net in times of duress has evolved into a lifestyle for many,you can’t deny that fact.I am not talking about people truly in need.However,the gov’t doesn’t care about that,just perpetuating the need for food stamps.For crying out loud,Obama removed the looking for work requirement for food stamp receipients.

 

[DeniseNY]

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. - Barack Obama, 2006

 

[Jeanne_S]

I can never understand why some folks are so willing to repeat GOP talking points like “it is not a cut - we are just slowing the rate of increase in funding” - that is so insulting to anyone with any level of intelligence.

Arbitrarily limiting the amount of funding for SNAP does nothing to slow the actual rate of food insecurity in the United States. All it does is force more people to make due with the same pool of money - which means that either services get cut or people get cut. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 92% of the money for SNAP went directly to benefits that households used to purchase food - that means there is not much waste in the program.

The only way to fix the problem of food insecurity is by strengthening the economy - something the GOP seems willing to throw under the bus with their latest move to shut down the government over funding Obamacare and threatening not to raise the debt limit.

No,the only way to fix the e onomy is for the gov’t to get out of the way.It’s the over reaching arm of the gov’t that has a stranglehold on any growth potential.The threat of Obamacare has further added to our stagnant economy.

 

[billcu1]

How is it a cut? Its slowing the rate of increase in funding. You realize that right? If so, you should quit misrepresenting the truth. Its not right to misrepresent in order to score cheap political points.

Ishii

I just heard on the news what sounded like to me it was being cut. Maybe I misunderstood. Posting on CAF is not a way to score political points.

 

[SMGS127]

SMGS, Your post is a total straw man. No one says that “if we just go to minimal tax rates everyone will start giving to charity.” Not that simple. However, I know that I would be giving more to charity if I didn’t have to pay so much in taxes. I already give to charity - but I would give more. Regarding, “Economic Republicanism” : there is no such ideology. There are conservative ideologies which offer a variety of views on how our economic system should be - generally pro-free market. Also, conservatives differ on how much should be spent on the safety net, welfare, etc. Those of a more libertarian bent are more likely to say, “cut the entitlements and eventually eliminate them.” Many conservatives say that private organizations, charities, Churches, etc. should take over helping those in need. Some of them are in the Republican party - as are some of the more libertarian types like Rand Paul and especially his father in the congress (still?) Ron Paul.

The problem is that conservative Catholics see other conservative Catholics and are like “well, if people are like this, we can easily have enough money to take care of charities, etc.!” Unfortunately, very few people in this country are like conservative Catholics other than conservative Catholics. Mormon charities have been reported to refuse to aid non-Mormons in disaster areas, and while a few Protestant religions are known for their charity, unfortunately too many people in this country are afflicted by greed for this to be a viable strategy. The only way to take care of our poor is through the government, as it is the only place where money will be used in sufficient amounts to keep our poor from starving.

Its not just about waste - its also about the effect that the entitlements which largely started in the 60’s as the “war on poverty” actually created more poverty and contributed to the factors which are the leading indicators of poverty such as single motherhood.

Care to explain? I would argue that single motherhood was started by birth control, not economic liberalism.

Why not? My wife works in order to help feed the family. Would you rather she quit work and go on foodstamps? If a mother refuses to work to feed her family, or if she had all sorts of kids by different men, then and she loses her foodstamps, how is that “forced starvation” ? Forced starvation is nothing more than hyperbole.

I would rather a parent be home at all times with young children. If you two can work your work schedules around that, then great. Most couples can’t. And single moms can’t afford a sitter if they can’t afford food; how do you expect them to keep their kids safe before their kids turn 6?

I admire your stands. But I don’t think slowing the rate of increase in food stamp funding is “forced suffering.” Perhaps you can explain how that works? How does a women with kids getting her foodstamps taken away, forced starvation? It would only result in starvation if the mother did nothing to feed her children - not get a job, not seek other areas for food - foodbanks, etc. In the state of Washington, foodstamps are available at the state level, and let me tell you all kinds of people of dubious need levels collect them.

I’m not saying there’s no waste. But you have to understand that if a single mother can’t work due to her kids being too young, surely we can’t expect her to go without food entirely. And food banks have shortages all the time; again, no one (and by no one, i mean very few people) donates anymore. There is certainly a better way to go than to issue a blanket cut and ban all non-working parents from receiving food stamps for their children. What if the only parent is a felon and can’t get a job? Should his/her kids starve as a result of their past actions? They’re not guilty of whatever their parent did.

You need to explain that last point further - you lost me.

In 2011, Republicans in the House refused to increase the debt limit, because they argued they didn’t agree to the funding, which was effectively the same argument as someone refusing to pay for their credit card bill because their spouse was the one who purchased the items. They held it (and the entire country’s financial credit score) hostage until Democrats agreed to make cuts to the budget. They cut the budget by $1 trillion over 10 years finally, but because they did so in a hostage situation, they caused our credit rating to drop from AAA to AA on one of the three credit bureaus, and our interest rates on our debt are now over $100 billion more per year. $100+ billion * 10 years = $1+ trillion, or more than they actually cut the budget.

They are talking about doing the exact same thing this year over ObamaCare funding. The fact that they are passing these huge interest rate increases onto our children to play political games is absolutely ridiculous and borderline economic terrorism.

Overall - you engage in straw men and hyperbole. You can do much better than that, I think. Republicans aren’t immune to criticism, but if you say they are “forcing children to starve” you are playing into liberal hysteria.

Ishii

I do not engage in either straw men or hyperbole. This bill has legitimate problems, and Republican leaders refuse to admit to any of them because their ideology blinds them and they don’t want to hand a “win” to Democrats in any way. They probably could have gotten many House Democrats to support their bill had they written it in a targeted approach to food stamp waste.

 

[seekerz]

Surely you jest?This is an active attempt to lure folks into the system,even when they aren’t in real need.Obama is all about creating gov’t dependency.What was intended to be a safety net in times of duress has evolved into a lifestyle for many,you can’t deny that fact.I am not talking about people truly in need.However,the gov’t doesn’t care about that,just perpetuating the need for food stamps.For crying out loud,Obama removed the looking for work requirement for food stamp receipients.

For crying out loud, didn’t it make sense to waive the work requirement (on the request of several governors, is my recollection) when there were LESS jobs available to people? In case you forgot, we went through a great recession…so unless we were to ask the unemployed to make bricks without straw, the work requirement had to be waived.

And for the second time, making people aware of what help is available does not make them automatically eligible for food stamps any more than pointing the way to the hospital with highway signs, makes more people sick.