Maggie Thurber has a post on the Food Stamp Challenge and it begs the question I always ask.
Should it suck to be poor?
Seriously, let's assume that food stamps would more than cover 3 squares a day. Would there ever be an incentive to not be on food stamps?
I like to compare this with homelessness. I think we can all agree that homelessness is bad. But should being homeless suck? Shouldn't we create an environment where being homeless is much worse than getting off the drugs and booze and actually getting a home for yourself.
Let's look at San Francisco. San Francisco spends over 100 million on their homeless population every year. Has that increased or decreased the homeless population in the Bay area?
I would say that from the smell of urine that pervades the city, my guess is not.
Imagine that you had a brother who fell on hard times and you allowed him to stay in your home. Would you be pissed if he got all uppity about that spaghetti you served him? Even though it was plenty good enough for you. What about that mac and cheese and hot dogs?
After a while, wouldn't you realize that you were just enabling this clown and give him the boot out?
Yet somehow we allow our governments to enable people's dysfunctional lives for generation upon generation.
Last year, I thought about doing this challenge. But then it dawned on me, I've already done it, only we called college.
I can't even look at a box of Kraft macaroni and cheese after the reminders of the cases of that crap I ate as an undergrad.
The same with those 33 cent pot pies and frozen burritos.
So excuse me if I don't have have a lot of compassion for people on food stamps who can't eat great cuts of meat and fresh vegetables for each meal. Guess what, me and my roommates ate shit and garbage for for five years, you can do it to and if you don't like it; do something about it. After all, being poor should suck.
3 comments:
Damn straight.
And one thing I always have to remind people about the bleeding heart mentality. It has a built in focus on the poor as a class that cannot be escaped. The dirty little secret is that different people are always moving in and out of poverty and we need to pay attention to what causes them to move in and out, instead of polititians shoveling other people's money into the financial black hole of poverty and calling it a solution that isn't big enough YET.
You never hear about those people who go from rags to riches, and have it seen for what it usually is: a free market triumph. Nearly all economic classes in America have shifted to a better standard of living than 30 years ago, and it's a result of a vibrant free market, not FOOD STAMPS!!!
And most people who are in poverty are there because of poor life choices such as dropping out of school, making babies, abusing alcohol/drugs, and lottery playing. They are not in poverty because the so-called "man" has kept them down. What keeps most people down (in this country) is a lack of proper understanding of life choices' effects on life consequences.
The perpetualization of the idea that poverty is caused by "not enough food stamps" does more to lock people into poverty than any 1800's corporate titan could ever have hoped to do.
To your point Gordon;
It should suck to be poor.
Or, to make the concept palateble to the reality-challenged, it shouldn't suck to be poor but, nevertheless, it does suck to be poor because that's it's definition. In fact an accurate definition of the word poor would be "1. A state of sucking. 2. An economic condition that a rational person would take steps to change."
People should not try to change the defintion of poor but should instead focus on educating people to make better personal choices.
Quit bitching buttholes I don't know what you think you individually contribute to government funded food program. I assert it's the equivalent of what you find in your couch cushions. Get over yourselves! I suggest you aquaint yourselves with the people who benefit from abovementioned programs and your 0.93% contribution before you stand in judgement.
According to The Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, Historical Tables, total outlays for Means Tested Entitlements in 2006 were $354.3 billion. This was 2.7% of GDP and
Includes Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance (AFDC), supplemental security income (SSI), child nutrition programs, refundable portions of earned income tax credits (EITC and HITC) and child tax credit, welfare contingency fund, child care entitlement to States, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care and adoption assistance, State children’s health insurance and veterans pensions.
The cost of these programs has increased from 0.8% of GDP in 1962 (before Medicaid) to 2.7% of GDP in 2006, or by 1.9% of GDP. If we exclude Medicaid, health care for children and veterans pensions it is 0.89 % of GDP, or $117 billion. (The numbers for the excluded items are found in Table 8.5, page 142). This represents approximately 7.5% of total non-Social Security receipts to the Federal Government. So, for every one of your tax dollars to the Federal Government, about 7.5 cents goes to these programs. I hate to use averages, but the average taxpayer had a tax rate of 12.45% in 2005 (the latest data available here), so if we multiply things out we see that about 0.93% of the average taxpayer’s income went to non-medical “welfare”. So, if you made $50,000 and paid $6,225.00 in Federal income tax, approximately $465.00 went to all of these programs x-healthcare and veterans pensions.
In true liberal fashion, you miss the point.
It isn't the overall cost of the welfare outlay that's of concern to me and most conservatives. It's what the welfare state has done to the destruction of families, neighborhoods and communities.
The welfare state is totally responsible for the genocide in our inner cities and for you to deny that says a lot more about you than conservatives.
Post a Comment