The American Spectator

Brian Mc| 2.28.12 @ 6:38AM

As a child, my face would burn with shame when I would hand the little book of coupons to the lady who, with her husband behind the butcher counter, owned the corner grocery across the street. I could not wait for the day when I could use 'real' money to buy food. I get the feeling that this is not the case anymore; that there is a certain sense of shamelessness if not outright resentment laced with satisfaction, rejoicing in the reimbursement their fellow Americans are forced to offer them. As their numbers grow I begin to wonder where the tipping point is and if socialists are willing to avoid it at all.

oldfart| 2.28.12 @ 7:12AM

Brian - today it is very common, having seen this myself, to see people purchase three or four cart loads of food with food stamps and load them into their new SUV.
Something is seriously broken.

vtwin| 2.28.12 @ 9:43AM

...and with so many Americans with no alternative but food stamps the shameless corporate elites continue to send American jobs overseas.

TrueBlue| 2.28.12 @ 1:35PM

Yup, it's so mean of those evil corporations to actually want to make money LIKE A BUSINESS IS MEANT TO when the GOVERNMENT KEEPS RAISING THEIR TAXES AND INCREASING REGULATIONS. I can't imagine why on earth they'd want to go somewhere else.

karla| 3.1.12 @ 1:18PM

Actually, True Blue, American corporations pay some of the lowest taxes of any industrialized nation, and studies (legitimate studies that is) show that regulations do not inhibit growth, and in fact, stimulate job creation in many ways.

Teaghan| 2.28.12 @ 8:15AM

And Brian, they aren't forced to use the dreaded stamps anymore, they get a convenient credit card. And you're right, it's not the case anymore, like a teenaged girl being pregnant, to be embarrassed or ashamed. It's their right to be taken care of by you and me.

Dmac| 2.28.12 @ 8:52AM

Its even worse than you think Brian. In some state the system is so broken down they don't check and they don't care what people do with the little food stamp credit card they get. In some states the card has cash value and can be used like a debit card to spend iton whatever people want. Go to the grocery store, by five dollars worth of food, swipe your card, hit the cash back button and actually cash out the card, proceed next door to the liquor store and spend the cash on booze. Those in charge don't care anymore, they've given in to loud and lazy crowd.
My feeling is that if you are under 55, you can walk, have ten fingers and ten toes your ass needs to be working. I can see helping someone with their needs, but only for a short time. After that, then tough choices need to be made, not by the government, but by the person who is about to lose their social benefits. Choices like, do I move in with my parents or my brother? Do I sell my car and get rid of that $350.00 a month car payment? Do I quit smoking and drinking?
Lastly, everyone should have to pee in a cup if they want to live off of someone elses money.

vtwin| 2.28.12 @ 10:14AM

"Everyone should have to pee in a cup," a prohibition on contraceptive, and rape victims should have their vaginas probed before getting an abortion...the era of conservative BIG Government.

Dmac| 2.28.12 @ 10:31AM

If I have to pee in a cup to prove that I'm not taking illegal drugs to get the job, that pays the salary (wages), that pays the taxes, that pay for the food stamps, then said recipient should also have to pee in a cup to prove they are not taking illegal drugs. Are you familiar with the term wages tips and "other compensation"? You would be if you had a job. Food stamps fall into the "other compensation" clause. If you can afford illegal drugs, or if you take illegal drugs and can not be employed because of it, you can fricken starve for all I care. I as a tax payer do not owe any drug user anything.

vtwin| 2.28.12 @ 10:47AM

One detail you overlooked; The potential employer pays for the drug test not the taxpayers.

Dmac| 2.28.12 @ 11:05AM

The taxpayers would save billions if we tested and yes paid for the drug test. Billions with a capital B.

vtwin| 2.28.12 @ 12:03PM

Sure, another BIG Government conservative idea that will pay for itself.

Remember this one; Cut the rate to 15% (at the costs of hundreds of Billions of Dollars annually, Billions with a capital B.) on investment income to "create jobs" and "increase tax revenues."

Results; Bush doubled the national debt and had less people employed at the end of his term than at the beginning.

Dmac| 2.28.12 @ 12:16PM

vtwin,
You're a typical liberal, once you see you are losing an arguement you choose to change the subject. Again you take the liberal low ground and choose to blame Bush. Its been over three years since we last saw a Bush in the Whitehouse. I managed to stay employed when Carter was President. I stayed employed because I finished school, I can read and write in English. I stayed off of hard drugs. I smoked my share of weed back then, but I didn't blame anyone but me for MY mistakes.
"Results; Bush doubled the national debt and had less people employed at the end of his term than at the beginning.", hey dumbass, Obama has doubled down on Bushes debt and un-employment is higher now than when Bush left office. Put your 40 down, go take a shaower, have a cup of coffee, sober up and go get a job.

Mac Jehoff| 2.28.12 @ 1:15PM

Does vtwin really mean fewer people employed? He is probably not an American vtwin, or he would be Flathead, Knucklehead, Panhead, Shovelhead, or Blockhead.

Dmac| 2.28.12 @ 1:30PM

You left out dick head

Fredrick Ward| 2.28.12 @ 1:54PM

Dmac,

nitwit has been doing that for a long, long time. Most of us just ignore him because he has absolutely nothing to offer.

TrueBlue| 2.28.12 @ 1:38PM

Actually revenue DID increase. Unfortunately the government increased spending by a lot more.

Riang| 2.28.12 @ 3:28PM

So you would raise the tax rate to 100%, redistribute all the income and have the economy grow by 172% a year.

More liberal voodoo economics.

JamesJ| 2.28.12 @ 1:56PM

One detail overlooked, we, the txpayers pay for their food, housing, beer, drugs...... I'll be glad to pay the extra $50 in taxes for drug screening. It will pay for itself when the tests come back positive.
Liberalism is truely a disease

Ralph Belcher| 2.28.12 @ 7:56PM

I saw a picture of pee in a cup and the caption read.."Shouldn't you have to pass a drug test to get your welfare check since I have to pass one to earn the money for you?".

Teaghan| 2.28.12 @ 1:23PM

Your vagina is going to "probed" to suck the baby out so your argument doesn't stand the pee test.

Gerald Bulkley| 2.28.12 @ 12:07PM

I fully agree. Once you are dependent upon someone else for your basic necessities you lose the right to make you're own choices. I mean the reason many are poor is due to the poor choices they have made in their lives. When did the poor become so noble and protected from any scrunity and criticism? One person busted their ass to get ahead by getting an education and working hard while the other smoked weed, dropped out of school and has countless babies he cant' support. Now it is expected that the guy that worked hard must take care of the loser who didn't.

This world is upside down.

karla| 3.1.12 @ 1:23PM

Using food stamps for anything other than food is illegal in every state. If you see that happening you need to contact the state dept. of human services and report the business that is breaking the law.

If you don't do that, you are a guilty as the person and the stores doing the cheating.

Alan Brooks| 2.28.12 @ 11:01AM

Problem is, fat guys such as Ben Stein are getting all the food. If it weren't for his ilk, world hunger would have ended long ago ;)
Remember the grossly overweight Sally Struthers public service messages for starving children? it was the best unintentional comedy around.

Dmac| 2.28.12 @ 11:06AM

I'm guessing Ben and Sally have always given more to charity than you have Alan.

Teaghan| 2.28.12 @ 1:24PM

Bingo!

TrueBlue| 2.28.12 @ 1:39PM

It's also their money, not ours, so who cares how much they eat?

Brian Mc| 2.28.12 @ 3:16PM

Obviously, Alan is watching what you eat, T.B. and he's quite jealous, if you care to know.

KyMouse| 2.28.12 @ 4:18PM

My grandfather hoed corn for 50 cents a day until he could afford the books he needed to become a country lawyer, and he went on to found one of this state's leading firms (and no, he was neither an ambulance-chaser nor a shark).

He would have died before he accepted "county charity," much less a federal handout, believing it to be a disgrace and a sign of laziness. My parents' generation thought much the same, I believe.

What happened to change that? Was it that word "entitlement"? Or the cynicism of the Sixties?

Should Have Impeached| 2.28.12 @ 10:12PM

The faces of two women preceding me in the grocery line didn't burn with shame when one of them asked me if I would let them purchase my items with their food stamps so I could give them the cash!! (I know most food stamp recipients don't do that. I just thought I'd share....)

Lmajito| 2.28.12 @ 6:39AM

So tomorrow Mitt gets to the oval office and the very next day he abolishes the food stamp program as part of his budget cutting measures...

Instantly you got tens of millions of citizens without food...then what?

Do you for a minute think that guns wont be on the streets as armed citizens go out to maim or kill for food?

Because that would be the direct result of this hate towars folks that receive food stamps (which by the way caucasians are the largest group to receive ebt)

The war should be against those industrialists that view taking us jobs overseas as a way to make their bottom line attractive to wall street while screwing main street.

Pecos Pete| 2.28.12 @ 7:34AM

Lmajito: See [ Nancy in NC ] comment below.

And, when did Mitt say he would abolish the food stamp program? Doofus comment.

Finally, if the tax rate on business in the USA was not the 2nd highest in the world (and soon to be the highest) business and if federal regulations weren't so onerous, then businesses might not move to more friendly countries.

If you don't like the USA and the free enterprise system, why don't you move to Cuba or Venezuela.

vtwin| 2.28.12 @ 10:04AM

...but Bush and the Republicons promised that lowering the income tax rate on investment income to 15% was going to lead to investments in new plants and equipment here in America and new jobs.

TrueBlue| 2.28.12 @ 1:44PM

It did, it's the rest of the regulations that got passed and the increased spending, plus the housing bubble forced on banks by more government regulations, that caused everything to crash. You are doing exactly what the MSM does, find one statement and take it entirely out of context, ignoring the big picture.

Al Adab| 2.28.12 @ 2:33PM

What effect do we suppose a 40% capital gains tax might have on investment? Somehow I suspect that the companies might have trouble raising money for new plants, expansion and equipment.

Same argument goes for regulatory costs which increase the price of investment in plants and business in this country and drives operations overseas. Cut the regs, ie EPA, OSHA, etc.

Teaghan| 2.28.12 @ 8:17AM

well you can blame those jobs going overseas on the government and the unions.

vtwin| 2.28.12 @ 10:18AM

...and you can can blame government handouts on the failures of free enterprise.

Teaghan| 2.28.12 @ 1:25PM

You are wrong vtwin, so very wrong.

TrueBlue| 2.28.12 @ 1:48PM

Actually for once, vtwin is technically telling the truth. Government choosing winners and losers (ie. handouts) via various subsidies and regulations HAS caused a failure in the system. They got involved where they had no business being.

Al Adab| 2.28.12 @ 2:35PM

Blue:
Spot on. Government choosing favorites (who then contribute to campaigns ala GE) which we call crony capitalism is actually Fascism.

Stan Redmond| 2.28.12 @ 2:17PM

Yes I can and I do. Government handouts and politically connected businesses destroyed free enterprise. GM should have been thrown in the trash heap of history with their mega failures. Hello Solyndra, Chevy Volt, GE...

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.28.12 @ 8:54AM

Perhaps Lamejito could tell the Class why, in America, "The Poor" are the FATTEST among us?

That quote at the beginning of this story, says it all. And, for this Food Stamp President, and his Democrat Allies, "They may grow DEPENDENT on it, and not learn to take care of themselves", has always been the Goal.

One need only look at "The Black Community" to witness the Fruits of their Labours." For 60 Years, they have been "KEPT" like Animals in one of those Preserves that you can drive through, who come up to the Car windows in search of food.

Like Pavlov's Dog, they Salivate on Thursday, in anticipation of the CHECK, on Friday.

And they come when they're called, come Election Day. Because they know who Feeds them. Who their MASTERS are.

"Here Boy!"

"Sit!"

"Now, BEG."

Thomas F. Williams | 2.28.12 @ 10:53AM

"Now, here is who you vote for."

When they own your pride, they own it all.

Fredrick Ward| 2.28.12 @ 3:20PM

That is exactly what Obama did recently when he started the African-Americans for Obama league.

Dmac| 2.28.12 @ 8:57AM

Lmajito,
No one is saying those that truly need help should not get help. What people are saying is that the fraud and abuse of the system needs to stop so that those that need the help actually get the help. All of us, every single American has seen the fraud and abuse with their own eyes. Everyone of us has seen someone buy food with foodstamps and watched them go into the parking lot and get into a $35,000.00 (or more) SUV, or Mercedes or Cadillac.
We can either put an end t6o the abuse of the system now and yes, there will be those that don't like it and we will deal with them, or we can wait for the ENTIRE system to collapse and then no one gets help. Thats when you will really see it hit the fan.
So whats the choice for you Lmajito, to fix the system and only anger the fraudsters, or wait for it to collapse entirely and hurt those that really need help?

Stan Redmond| 2.28.12 @ 2:20PM

There use to be a time when the government wasn't in the business of giving handouts. I don't remember people starving in the streets.

How soon liberals forget that religious charities fed, clothed, and housed the truly destitute. It is very sad what liberals believe about their fellow Americans.

Ground Control| 2.28.12 @ 9:16AM

Ljmajito actually has a point. What would happen if the "goodies" are cut off by the Federal Government? We have a sizable population utterly dependent on government support and without other people's money simply given to them, it is likely, indeed a near certainty, that these leeches will take to the streets and riot. It is happening in Greece. This has been long predicted. Cut off the freebies and watch out for riots. The USA is running out of money. We can't continue to support this many people through subsidies. Unless we go back to a market based economy and away from a government based economy, it will soon collapse entirely. When it does, riots will almost certainly ensue. This is something to consider.

Thomas F. Williams | 2.28.12 @ 11:53AM

Rioting rarely generates the desired result of the violent mass. If people riot for want of food, will the end result be a full stomach? NO! Unless they eat one another. Loot the grocery stores down to bare shelves, then what? Still without food and without a real solution to your hunger. Work, grow, provide and do it all though one another and for one another. Not for self alone which is the guise of a rioting mob, a group all set out for the benefit of self and self alone.

Gerald Bulkley| 2.28.12 @ 12:16PM

The goodies will be cut off either by choice or by reality.
Our refusal to address this huge economic tsunami back in 08-09 has created a situation where it won't be if we collaspe but when. The economic reality will hit us like a brick in the face.

Bob K.| 2.28.12 @ 10:00AM

Lmajito,

There is no need to abolish food stamps all at once. There can be test cases first to see how it works out.

Food Stamps were first used in volume in Puerto Rico.

I suggest we stop issuing them there first to see what happens.

David W| 2.28.12 @ 10:12AM

first, there won't be a total cut off of food stamps (the dumocrats and libtards won't allow it). However, I would hope that the GOP candidate will force several changes:
1) one has to renew/reapply for food stamps every 6 months - and you only get to reapply twice. Then you are out of luck.
2) food stamps only go toward food (not casinos or beer or other crap)
3) fire anyone in the Fed Govt who thinks that food stamps stimulate the economy.

We don't hate people on food stamps, we hate the people to encourage them to be on food stamps, we hate the people who have gamed the system to get something for nothing, we hate the government leaders who are responsible for the economic mess we are in. And yes, it is because of government intervention that we are in this mess, not Wall Street or banks or mortgage companies or capitalists or rich people or industrialists. They are reacting as anyone would who is being attacked by government regulation, taxation, interference. If the left didn't hate those who pay the bills and if the government didn't reflect that hate in its policies maybe more jobs would be here.

And I think we conservatives have more guns than the people on food stamps.

buckeyeman| 2.29.12 @ 12:33PM

The food stamp program, like most welfare redistributionist programs cannot be "fixed". It is immoral at the outset and just gets worse from there. It's already illegal to use food stamp money for tobacco, alcohol, etc. so "prohibiting" it won't do anything. Besides, money is fungible, so giving some freeloader food stamps simply frees up the rest of their cash for booze, smokes, crack, lottery tickets, or whatever.

"We don't hate people on food stamps..." Speak for yourself. I certainly do hate them. They are stealing my money and destroying my country.

Dmac| 2.28.12 @ 10:36AM

Here's another thought for you to chew on Lmajito,
A lot of charity in this country come from Churches. Churches run many food pantries, give clothes and medical help to the poor. Who do you think supports those charities? Liberals who denounce organized religion, or conservatives who are laughed at for their belief in a higher being?
Conservatives are the true givers in this country and don't ever forget it. Conservatives are the true compassionates as well. Conservatives want to teach you to fish so you can feed yourself, while liberals just want to give you a fish so you'll have to come back to them everytime you need to eat.

vtwin| 2.28.12 @ 10:54AM

Americans don't need church charity or compassionate conservatives they need JOBS!

Dmac| 2.28.12 @ 11:09AM

Tehn go start a business vtwin and hire some people. Governments do not create jobs. They can only create an enviroments that allows businesess to expand and hire more workers. Charities exist to help those that can not help themselves or can not overcome Democratic Party socialist bullshit. They also exist to help those who are mentaly deficient like yourself.

vtwin| 2.28.12 @ 12:20PM

People can't depend on charities, charities would be overwhelmed by the costs,under Bush the economic system collapse, that's why the costs for unemployment insurance, food stamps... have skyrocketed. It's not Obama, it's the Bush mess.

Dmac| 2.28.12 @ 1:24PM

Here we go again, Bush did it, Bush caused it, it started the day Bush was born, look chicken little, Bush has caused the sky to fall. Quit looking backwards and start looking forward you loser.
Charity begins at home. Many of those collecting welfare of some kind from the government, whether it be state, county or federal could help the economic situation of the country if they would depend more on their family (as it used to be done before Democrats/socialist got power) or the local church.
By the way vtwin, as everyone else knows already, the economic collapse was caused by the democratic Congress ignoring the Bush administrations repeated warnings about Freddie and Fannie. Also your President, Mr. Obama was present at more than one extorsion meeting where he and other civil rights leaders(thats a joke isn't it) threatened banks with boycotts and smear campaigns if they did not make home loans to UN-qualified people.
Vtwinm you are either a liar or ignorant. A liar or ignorant, which are you vtwin? We already know you have a closed mind, unable to be swayed with facts. Led purely by emotion and anger that others have and you do not. You blame others who work hard for what they have(remeber, just like not all poor peopleare lazy, not all well off people are thieves). Why is that? Why are you so upset that somepeople are actually succesful? Is it because you have done nothing with your life and you're jealous? Then do something with your life! Go to school, run for office, or hey, just get a damn job and contribute to the tax system. Maybe after you've had two or three kids and you see the parents on food stamps have no problem buying their kids new hundred dollar sneakers you will begin to feel like som eof us do? Maybe when you go to the grocery store to buy food for your family and your deciding do I buy this or put it back so I can afford gas to put in my car to go to work you'll figure out what pisses the WORKING class off about people like YOU! You, who will defend a lazy man over someone who gets up every damn morning, no matter how sore he is from the labors of yesterday and drags himself to his job to provide for his family. While some dope smoking lazy man goes to one of his girlfrineds house and demands his cut of the welfare check. While society pays for his kids food, clothing and medical care when the divorced man paying child support under a threat of jailtime takes care of his kids while he eats spam and peanut butter and jelly sandwhiches. You're an ignorant person vtran, you know nothing of what life is really like. You have yet to figure out how hard it is to start with nothing but dignity and a strong work ethic and provide for a family. You beleive people should be lazy and let other provide. So what will you do when those that provide say NO! No more!. Will you get angry, loot and burn down homes and businesses. Or, will you decide to WORK?
Maybe you've yet to figure out that middle class Americans pay well over 50% of what they earn to taxes and government fees of somekind. Add it all up, income taxes, sales taxes, gasoline tax, scholl taxes, county tax, it goes on and on. I have figured my taxes and government fees to be 58% of what I bring home. I'm middle class, not lower middle or upper middle, middle. I think I pay enoug, actually a little more than enough. I beleive the taxes and fees I pay are a direct infringment on my right to happiness. I think paying to support drug users and those that commit fraud of our social services is also an infringement on my right to happiness. I can tell you for damn sure it is an infringement on my childrens rights. As their parent I should be allowed the opportunity to take care of them to fullest, notice I said fullest, not best, of my ablity. Well those that frauduantly use our social services infrinege upon my right to do better for my children.
Vtwin, you and those like you who refuse to learn, you and your ilk can go straight to hell. You want to talk about Bush and the past, go read what our forefathers 250 years ago had to say about taxes. Go read what they said about wages and that they cnsidered wages work and that it was wrong to take a mans work and give it to a man who would not work. That the problem with you liberals, you want to act like we have no history, that it should be re-written daily to fit whatever need or feeling you have on nay given morning. Read a book you moron.

Fredrick Ward| 2.28.12 @ 3:28PM

Now go perform your Ohms prayer to the Obama shrine in your room. You have diligently tried to supplant the blame onto Bush as you have been taught. Good job, boy! Good job! Here's a treat.

Gerald Bulkley| 2.28.12 @ 1:01PM

Then why has your party put so many burdens and regulations in they way of creating jobs? Who do you think pays for the unemployment benefits that they keep extending?
Typical liberals just like hearing yourself talk but offering no sloutions. The very party that is destroying jobs complains when there are none!!

Fredrick Ward| 2.28.12 @ 3:25PM

Funny how you are all for the government giving hand outs, but when someone mentions the churches and conservative charities getting involved, then you have a real issue with hand outs. HAHA! You're such a transperant jackass, nitwit.

Thomas F. Williams | 2.28.12 @ 11:46AM

Some may turn to the streets with guns, not all. The ones that do would soon realize a grave mistake has been made. As the the ones the looters would try and take from through violence are the same ones whom through violence have provided you a free nation. As a Soldier I do not fear a lazy, hungry man with a gun any more than an idiot with a computer and an internet connection. If you were to lazy to either provide for yourself through work or ask for help, then you were probably to lazy to learn to shoot anyway. Food and man will remain safe.
Most people would turn to the traditional scources of assistance, neighbors, family and church. We are always trying to "help" the poor, but the most influential man in human history already told us, "You will always have the poor". Lmajito, be careful how you use the word war. Some of us have participated, and are truly prepared for use of the word.

Dmac| 2.28.12 @ 12:19PM

Our recent history, last 50 years, has shown the rioters tend to riot in their own neighborhood and burn their own houses down.
They would not dare march into any middle or upper class neighborhood and try it. They would be out numbered and under armed.

Dmac| 2.28.12 @ 1:38PM

Maybe those that actually pay taxes will take to the streets before the welfare recipinets do. Maybe the taxpayers will take up arms and do the hell raising that needs to be done? Maybe....we can only hope so, and do it all in Washington D.C.. Get a rope!

Stan Redmond| 2.28.12 @ 2:31PM

I have a feeling only the thug element of the welfare society would do any rioting. The majority of welfare dependents are just too lazy and unmotivated to do anything themselves. Why else are there "organizers" to whip them in to a frenzy.

Nancy in NC| 2.28.12 @ 6:56AM

Imagine this...the dollar continues to plummet, the debt continues to rise...the economy collapses. No one is willing to loan the USA money as we are unable to pay the bills. Who will give us food stamps then? And all those people dependent on government largesse will be hungry and angry. NY, Chicago, and LA will look like Athens. Why do so many Americans think we are not subject to the economic consequences of our bad behavior? And how will blaming corporations solve the problem?

Indy| 2.28.12 @ 7:40AM

Our education system has dumbed down the electorate. The majority of Americans can tell you all about pop culture and sports trivia but they have no idea of basic economics, our founding principles or history. They live on credit and get their "news" from 30 sec sound bites. They think Hollywood celebrities are cool and they vote D so they will vote for Obama too, sadly that's how too many of them think.

When 50% pay no federal income taxes we have passed the tipping point, Athens here we come, the media barely covers what is happening over there. Even George Soros is predicting riots will come to the US and soon. OWS is his tool to make it happen, the UAW and other unions are openly leading the charge, the media....crickets.

http://www.theblaze.com/storie.....f-worship/

Mike| 2.28.12 @ 9:03AM

The pols know that by keeping the electorate stupid, it's easier to keep getting elected for as long as they want. The pols figured this out years ago, and that's why the education system has been going downhill for so long.

Appleby| 2.28.12 @ 7:00AM

My Mama gets $70 a month in food stamps, and it makes the difference between anxiety and peace for her. Yes, her children would make up the $70 and in fact we do make it up in many ways. But she and Daddy never made more than $10,000 a year working and bringing us up, and we feel she's entitled to a little return on her "investment".

Before I moved away from Buffalo when it collapsed in the 1980s, it was common for those of us working temporary jobs or who had husbands still employed to be standing at the grocery store shuffling coupons and counting pennies while enormous fat women and their fat children waddled up to the checkout with two cartloads of junk food and substantial purchases of red meat, slapping down them food stamps like a badge of office. I was fortunate to land a good job in Atlanta and move away from that sight, but was not surprised that when the food stamp program started matching records with the social security card numbers of alleged children in households, there were people with 70-105 registered children packing away the groceries.

Darin| 2.28.12 @ 7:09AM

There used to be personal shame about having to accept government handouts. That was when Americans still had their pride. Now, we just want our free cookie (or food stamps, or government check, or whatever). Read the parable "to catch a wild pig."

tsd| 2.28.12 @ 7:22AM

Our Presidents final goal is for every last one of us to be on food stamps!!!

Stan Redmond| 2.28.12 @ 2:33PM

Just think of how much eceonomic activity that would create. If say, every person in the USA, MAKE IT THE WORLD, were put on food stamps at a cost of 1 trillion per year why that would generate so much revenue and economic activity we would be burning $100 bills to keep warm.

Drek| 2.28.12 @ 7:42AM

Don't forget Santorum's role in expanding the program.

During the Bush tenure, the GOP tried to reform the program, only to be thwarted by Santorum in the Senate.

There is a headline in the NY Post today: "Santorum attacks JFK!"

Now THERE'S a winning headline for the Fall!

And Santorum is begging Wolverines to come out and vote for him, because Romney was against the auto bailout. Meanwhile, unmentioned in the fine print is that little detail that Santorum was also against the auto bailout.

Louis Jenkins| 2.28.12 @ 8:37AM

Can't wait until employment is so high 75% of the Americans will be on the dole. My plan is to drop out from the rat race, hunt, raise chickens, and raise my own crops. Sounds bad to some of you, but let's face it, every man and woman on foodstamps will vote the democrat ticket. I refuse. We are becoming the foodstamp nation. It's no longer shameful to pull out your EBT card, pay for your grub, and then get in your Escalade and drive away from the grocery store. It is a tragedy that America, once proud, has come to that, but it will be.

" Team Obama is smiling with every additional handout-taking voter." It is his plan, and it is working. Forty nine percent of the population pays no taxes what so ever, and indeed, it more comfortable to be poor than to work for what you have.

jothepro| 2.28.12 @ 8:37AM

Hey Drek, You were for the auto bailout?

Ground Control| 2.28.12 @ 9:09AM

A minor quibble: The National Park Service is part of the Department of the Interior.

If Nancy Pelosi were correct and there was a net increase in economic activity and consequently wealth, as the result of Food Stamps, Welfare, and Unemployment Compensation, then logically there would be a commensurate increase in Federal Revenue and the National Deficit and National Debt would be dropping. This is not happening. The truth is, economically, such programs are an expense, not an investment. They result in a net LOSS of economic activity, which means a drop in wealth and consequently a drop in Federal Revenue. Pouring money in to these programs serves no economic purpose whatsoever and is effectively pouring money down a hole. But it does serve a POLITICAL purpose. It buys votes for Democrats. This is the ONLY purpose it is intended to serve, as Democrats like Nancy Pelosi get re-elected time after time by people who have been bought with other people's money, and fools whose sole political goal is the supremacy of the Party. Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democrat party are totally corrupt.

Neal | 2.28.12 @ 1:01PM

Isn't It Ironic?

The food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever.

Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, asks us to "please do not feed the animals" because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.28.12 @ 9:11AM

"Those who sacifice liberty for security, deserve neither."
They are accustomed to feeding time at the zoo, but have not yet realized that they live in a cage.

THKrupp| 2.28.12 @ 9:16AM

Whats also ironic is that same Dept of Ag also feeds farmers…will our farmers ever be able to feed themselves?

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.28.12 @ 9:25AM

Nice.

Absolutely right.

THKrupp| 2.28.12 @ 10:11AM

Thanks Timothy,

THKrupp| 2.28.12 @ 9:23AM

What they are not mentioning is the opportunity costs. To say that food stamps increase economic activity ignores the fact that it doesnt matter who spends the money. Whenever money is spent it has an economic impact and a multiplier effect. The person whose taxes that this money came from would also spend or invest this money causing an economic effect. Its probably a wash in the grand scheme of things.

THKrupp| 2.28.12 @ 9:36AM

They only way they should sell this to the general public is on the social merits only. If these payments dont stand on social merits then they should be done away with.

I see a lot of people using them in my area. Most of them look pretty down and out. Im also surprized by the number of Amish that use these benefits. I have no problem with people who actually need this sort of assistance getting it. Efforts to reduce corruption should be made as well as managment of the whole welfare system made so that people can get off of them. I would rather see more put into retraining programs that actually work

George S| 2.28.12 @ 9:57AM

We don't need food stamps to fight hunger. Just pass a law that mandates every American buy food or pay a fine to the IRS. Furthermore, the law must state that if a person gets hungry, then restaurants and supermarkets must treat his hunger for free.

But not just what the providers want to give you: all food that is available to those who can afford it is yours for the taking.

Now when this increases the cost of food, we can blame the greedy ranchers and farmers who export food at below market prices which then get imported back to the U.S.

Will this increase the demand for food? Yes -- and it presents a health concern as producers rush in to fill the demand. So any new crop or genetic strain of beef or poultry must go through years of testing before being approved for use.

(If you are an elite you will have separate restaurants that somehow have the best food from the best chefs).

As food becomes more and more expensive, specialty producers will attempt to band together and offer, say, poultry-only products, or corn-only market, in an attempt to avoid feeding those who are emergency hungry. To head that off, the Interior Department makes it a law that anyone who offers food for sale must stock every possible variety. That is because emergency hungers might not like the free food that is on the menu. And we can't have that.

Now that's how modern government solves problems the smart way. Food stamps? How 1960's.

Mike 3/505| 2.28.12 @ 10:31AM

George...You too, are on the list of folks who owe me for coffee-soaked keyboard.

Regards,

Mike

Al Adab| 2.28.12 @ 10:14AM

A government agency which "provides services" to the public judges itself by the increse in the numbers of "needy" people it serves. The in house analyists see this as being more efficient and reaching more people. They do not look outside their paradigm to consider whether their services are actually necessary or to consider the long term effects of the program. We have indeed create a society which the forest service rightly fears. Take away the dependancy and those who find themselves without an easy hand out road become vicious. Such a scenario for our future is not pretty. Rome suffered urban riots every time the grain disbursement was reduced.

Mike 3/505| 2.28.12 @ 10:22AM

"Food stamp spending represents a modest percentage of entitlement spending. "

Ross, my friend...we will never win this debate until we learn to use terms properly. Food Stamps are NOT an entitlement. There is nothing a recipient does to earn or pay for food stamps. Same with welfare or medicaid. Social Security, Medicare and veterans benefits are entitlements. People drawing them, have either paid with cash or service for those benefits. Words mean something.

Entitlement Mentality...that's another discussion. :-)

Regards,

Mike

Anthony| 2.28.12 @ 10:29AM

We have the D establishment, i.e. the twin reprehensible A-holes, Durbin and Schumer, tellling the American people that Obozo is a responsible leader, growing the economy with his Food stamp policy!!
Then we have Bill Clinton seeking a Nobel Peace Prize, I guess for he and Hillary making over $40M last year, that, or not having molested a woman for one year!!
Obozo is destroying America by the day and he gets cudos for handing out crumbs!!
America has gone insane!!!!

Oldefarte| 2.28.12 @ 10:44AM

Allow me to extend Ross' outstanding editorial to the recent TAS discussions regarding abortion. Indigents producing children for which they are ill-equipped to financially provide for, end up increasing governmental welfare cost to taxpayers. The anti-abortionist moralists do not however provide a total solution from adoption from these indigent births, therefore becoming supporters of increased governmental outlays of food stamps and other governmental welfare!!!!!

LibertyHawk| 2.28.12 @ 11:25AM

Excellent article. Free Loader Nation must come to an end - or our Republic certainly shall. This November is our Gettysburg and I call all Patriots to rise, talk to friends, co-workers, and business associates. No matter who the Republican candidate ultimately is, we must stand united. We must support worthy conservative candidates in local, municipal, county, state, and congressional electoral races. The jihadi loving, candy pants commie dictator want-to-be must be opposed and retired to Chicago. Where ever possible, democrats should be thwarted from holding public office - not even County Dog Catcher ! Free Loader Nation must come to an end. Support Voter photo ID when any opportunity presents itself. Support True the Vote to rid the voting rolls of invalid and fraudulent registrations.

Redstateboy| 2.28.12 @ 12:01PM

It's not difficult to understand if one simply acknowledges the true name of the Democrat Party as: "The Slave Party."
The Democrat Party was and still is the Slave Party. The only difference between today and 150 years ago is they don't whip their slaves but then as now.. they do not want them to be educated and they want them solely dependant on the Massa`for everything. The Slaves know one thing.. to keep food on the table? Just stumble down the ole' voting booth and vote (as many times as possible) by simply pressing: "D". There's just one problem... we've finally have run out of other people's money to keep the slaves calmly down on the good ole' Democrat Plantation.

nathan| 2.28.12 @ 12:16PM

I cannot undertake to find that article of the Constitution that allows me to spend my constituents ' money on behalf of benevolence.

Madison, when as a congressman under the new Constitution he is viewed as the father of was voting on a bill to provide relief for French refugees fleeing the horrors of the French revolution, couldn't find anything in the Constitution that at the federal level authorized benevolence spending. If he couldn't find it, it simply doesn't exist.

Food stamps involving federal funds are . . . .

UNCONSTITUTIONAL

PERIOD

Good intentions are meaningless here, it is irrelevant whether the program is well run or badly run, if the program were run perfectly with ZERO fraud, if it were the best run program the government ever had created . . . .

It's unconstitutional. There is no provision for benevolence spending at the federal level. Madison didn't say "unless people are starving", or "unless people are being thrown out of their houses", or "unless and except . . . " he said there is no provision, no article in the federal constitution for benevolence spending

PERIOD

If we as individuals want to as Jesus told us, play good Samaratin, we are free to do so, and for Christians, at AN INDIVIDUAL level, we should do as he commanded us. At the state and local level where the federal constitution does not hold sway if we want to establish programs in Michigan or Virginia or North Carolina tailored to the needs of the people living in those states, we are free to do so.

But at the federal level we are prohibited from spending money on behalf of benevolence be it AIDS in Africa, a project Bush liked, or Food Stamps, or name whatever good intention you have in mind.

The Constitution is the governing law of the land. And it binds us all, liberal and conservative. Remember that, conservative "good intentuions" are not allowed to violate it either so can we get rid of the NDAA language as long as we talking about "good intentions"?

But in any case, no benevolence spending. NONE, for any reason, at any time at the federal level PERIOD. End the program, and any like it

NOW!

Thank you.

Brian Mc| 2.28.12 @ 1:49PM

Dead on, Nathan. All of our conscientious benevolence here at home, and around the world has gotten us to a point that reminds me of a scene in "Animal House"...THEY LOVE US!

Purp| 2.28.12 @ 3:21PM

Re-read the Preamble to the Constitution. It is the first, most important philosophy of the new government that frames the Constitution body that follows. Not too tough, huh?

Al Adab| 2.28.12 @ 6:26PM

Not so Purp. It was written by Governour Morris who acted as the committee on style to state why the document was devised. Common defense, General welfare and domestic tranquility are not enumerated powers.

Al Adab| 2.28.12 @ 6:27PM

BTW Purp:
Even Hamilton, no small govt guy, stated that the necessary and proper clause only appl;ied to enumerated powers and did not justify undelegated actions.

Ross Kaminsky| 2.28.12 @ 4:30PM

I trust you didn't think I was actually suggesting that Madison would have supported federal food programs...

Bill| 2.28.12 @ 12:37PM

that's how Obama gets 98% of the black votes and 67% of the Latino votes.

Purp| 2.28.12 @ 3:21PM

Bigot.

Bill| 2.28.12 @ 6:08PM

you Bigot

Seek| 2.28.12 @ 6:56PM

There's nothing "bigoted" about pointing out the inconvenient fact that food stamp usage among blacks and Hispanics, propertionately speaking, is a good deal higher than among whites -- and that Obama wants to keep it that way.

Bill| 2.28.12 @ 8:31PM

Seek, thank you.

Mike Hawk| 2.28.12 @ 7:48PM

(__!__)

Nick| 2.28.12 @ 7:16PM

"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403

You're a moron and a racist, Bill.
GO AWAY!

Neal | 2.28.12 @ 12:54PM

Isn't It Ironic?

The food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever.

Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, asks us to "please do not feed the animals" because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.

cicero| 2.28.12 @ 1:45PM

Why is anybody suprised? Once you understand the purpose of the community organizer, you understand this Administration's agenda. I first ran into the "community organizers" in Detroit in the very early 70s. Their stated purpose was to inform the poor of all the benefits they were entitled to from the government, and then make sure that they all signed up for them. The stated purpose was to overwhelm the programs so that they collapsed, and chaos ensued. At that point, they were in a position to tke over, and remake the society in an image they held in their heads. The fact that such activity solidified the poor in position was of no concern, as the poor were only the means to their end.
In 2008, this country elected a community organizer, who told us exactly what he intended to do. For some unknown reason, the majority of the country didn't believe him, and the opposition party thought he was just another candidate, and failed to campaign against what was there to see. The only one who was up to the task, Sarah Palin, was pushed into a room, and locked away, so that she wouldn't make any waves.We are now, so far, playig the same losing game. At some point, the conservative candidate has to point out to the American people just what they are being confronted with.
The Democrat Party is interested in one thing only - staying in power. This administration has no love for this country, and in reality holds it and its ideals in contempt. The ruling political class acctually believes that when the crunch comes, they will be immune from the consequences. I have news for them - when their constituency riots because they have run out of other peoples' money, the hungry masses will not turn their rage on their neighbors, but on the elite hiding behind their gates. They will not be saved by their military, as in some third world countries, as the military in America is a citizen one.
Be carefull what you wish, and conive, for.

Purp| 2.28.12 @ 3:19PM

The number of people on foodstamps doubled under Bush. Those were the “good old days”? They have gone up 50% under Obama, but he has had to deal with stopping the recession and recovering the economy. What was the reason for the big increase under Bush?

Stan Redmond| 2.28.12 @ 6:58PM

THE GOVERNMENT SPENDS TOO MUCH MONEY AND GIVES OUT TOO MUCH WELFARE! HOW'S THAT!

Seek| 2.28.12 @ 4:04PM

This is a classic case of interest-group politics masquerading as representing the public good. Note how the benchmark for "success" here is not how many food stamp recipients leave, but how many enroll. Note as well how expenditures are "investments," this were anything but welfarism. (Jack Kemp-style Republicans, by the way, often do the same thing, rebranding such transfer payments as "empowerment".)

The reality is that program participation is at an all-time high because the Obama administration likes it that way. More participation means more grateful recipients come Election Day.

Martin Owens| 2.28.12 @ 5:50PM

So each dollar the government spends, magically turns into almost 2 dollars?

Reminds me of the story about the two drunks walking down a country road. One has a big jug of wine, the other a dollar bill. When one of them gets thirsty he hands the dollar bill to the other and gets the jug in return. And down the road they go, swapping dollar for jug, jug for dollar, until at last it's sunset and the wine is all gone.

They leave the road and crawl into a nearby haystack to sleep it off, telling each other "we'll have a headache in the morning, but with this volume of business we're sure to be rich".

Floyd Looney| 2.28.12 @ 6:31PM

Gov takes $1 from you, gives 25 cents away the rest eaten by bureaucracy.

Floyd Looney| 2.28.12 @ 6:30PM

One of the problems, besides that government distribution is one of the most inefficient ways (70% overhead costs or something like that) is that government giveaways and government spending does not benefit the economy. That money has to come from somewhere, the government swallows a huge chunk and the economy recieves a tiny bit back.

How is that going to boost anything except campaign coffers from those wanting the handouts?

Kingofthenet| 2.28.12 @ 8:08PM

You people as ALWAYS don't get it, you want to rant and rave about some poor smuck getting some food help. Here is the REAL facts, Food Stamps ARE welfare but for Agra-Business, guess the ONE group of products that are still made in the USA...FOOD

POST American| 2.28.12 @ 10:42PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

-Laying to one side those reports of
some 250,000 Indian small farmers
committing suicide over the
past decade, unable to 'adapt' to the
onslaught of the Rothchild-Big Pharma
---Monsanto power grabs for GMO
food in that country------

-------UH--------

shouldn't people be worried about the
food even more than the food stamps?

Kingofthenet| 2.28.12 @ 11:23PM

Holy Shite, PA you actually get it, like those Indian Farmers we are being sold a 'Bill of Goods'.
You know they developed crops that are resistant to 'Roundup' They call them 'Roundup Ready' crops, Now all Monsanto needs to do is Bio-Engineer HUMANS to be 'RoundUp Ready'...It's coming boys and girls.

Nick| 2.28.12 @ 11:43PM

Hey KooK!
Did you ever figure out when, exactly, human biological life begins?

WGMOW| 2.29.12 @ 1:36AM

Did you ever notice that a disproportionate number of food stamp users are obese, and even morbidly obese? Ironic, isn't it?

POST American| 2.29.12 @ 11:13PM

--Speaking of unspeakable capstone EUGENICS--

"BY 2000, EUGENICS had lost much
of its NAZI baggage--"
-'Endgame'
(documentary online)

DO get the word out about leading
capstone EUGENIST, Dr Peter Singer
of Princeton, and his sustained calls
for designating children ---up to the
age of 3! --as being 'disposable'.

NOT A JOKE

Of course, he gives lip to it being up
to the parent's discretion.

But, even further, this is to include
even 'healthy' children.

He claims children aren't even
people UNTIL age 3.

In 2012, it seems NAZISM itself has
lost MUCH of its NAZI baggage.

--------GET THIS MONSTER, and
his 'benny factors' exposed ----and REMOVED!

SPREAD THE WORD ----EVERYWHERE

NUREMBERG 1934 ----IS HERE!

KN| 4.29.12 @ 7:36PM

The Park Service is in the Department of the Interior, not Agriculture. The Forest Service is in Agriculture.