700,000 Americans Citizens May Lose Food Stamp Benefits

Post Reply New Topic

Now...I believe in Food Stamps and all these “entitlement programs” as a societal safety net.

I don’t believe we should cut off 683,000, or 700,000, or whatever from Food Stamps.

But I do believe we should seek to discourage dependency. Discourage the multigenerational dependency.

We should provide incentives for people to train on the new technology.

Not everyone with an ASD diagnosis qualifies for disability either. But there are probably a lot of people (some of whom probably have ASD, diagnosed or otherwise) who can't find jobs because prospective employers just don't like them. The existence of such people is certainly not disproven by the existence of other people who might be incorrectly diagnosing themselves with ASD.

Most people with Level One autism would not qualify for Disability based on that diagnosis alone.

As I'm employed in my special interest, I can do many things extremely quickly via rote memory. And get a ton of work by dropping into a "flow state." I can remember how it was done decades ago even though I haven't needed to to it until just now.

You are lucky enough to have good, competent parents who can take care of the process for you -- and who can afford to pay social workers (and disability lawyers), which most people who "really need the help" cannot.

There also exist social workers who work for nonprofit organizations, but their services aren't available everywhere and tend to be rather swamped, to say the least.

This kind of thing has been on my mind recently.

Sometimes people have no choice but to be dependent on others for short term things or permanent things and in those cases there's absolutely nothing wrong with being dependent. Examples of dependency range from asking someone to hold a door open for you when you have your hands full and can't open the door for yourself to needing 24/7 custodial care and many things in between. It's needing assistance with something.

Assistance ---> Dependence ---> Loss of a freedom.

I argue that taking assistance for something that you don't actually need assistance for does create dependence and in turn results in a loss of freedom. Never willingly relinquish a freedom.

You incorrectly see aid to the poor as a zero-sum game. In fact, aid to the poor is an economic stabilizer, helping to maintain the economy for everyone in ways that (up to a point, at least) more than offset the higher taxes.

People spending their food stamps help create jobs at local food stores in poor neighborhoods. The people who work at those food stores also spend their money at local stores, also helping to create and maintain jobs there. The store owners also pay rent, giving their landlords money to spend (or invest, and/or pay taxes). And so on.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 06 Dec 2019, 10:30 am, edited 2 times in total.

These are good points about stabilization. I thought of an analogy years ago when I was pondering whether or not government job creation (ie jobs funded by taxpayer contributions) was a boost to the economy or a detriment to the economy that seemed like a boost:

Picture the owners of homes on a suburban street. Say, six homes. Those homeowners hire a landscaping company, a housecleaning company, a painter, a roofer, an accountant, a babysitter and a plumber. Those hired by the homeowners spend the money that they're paid in the local economy keeping that economy healthy. All the revenue made by each party hired by the homeowners comes from the homeowners and no other source.

The amounts charged by the various workers rise sharply and continue to rise to the point that three of the six homeowners have no more money to pay the workers. The workers therefore charge even more to the remaining homeowners. Two more homeowners can't pay for services as a result leaving one homeowner at which point that one homeowner sells her home. Now there are no homeowners.

The homeowners in my analogy are the taxpayers. This analogy fits the thread topic because it always comes back to the taxpayers, the source of funding, the source of the money that is spent in the community. Without acknowledging that taxpayer funding is finite it seems that the ripple effect of the money spent in the economy from government assistance is a good thing. It is, but government assistance money is generated from the taxpayer. It's not a limitless source of funding at all.

Of course it's not limitless, but I should point out that, historically, the U.S. economy was much better in the 1950's and 1960's than it is now. And, guess what? Taxes on the rich were much higher back then than they are now. That's why we need progressive income tax (taxing the rich at higher rates than the middle class).

I agree with you, Magna. There are many people who do need help.

But...like you say....if one doesn't really NEED to help, and would only FEEL GOOD by receiving help, it's not worth it to enter the Whirlpool. One should really think mighty long and hard before conceding that "freedom" you mentioned.

The freedom not to be more scrutinized by the Government---the freedom not to have your privacy sacrificed by dependence upon the Government.

Dependence on the Government does tend to become a Whirlpool. It is very difficult to get out once you're in.

I wonder if the tax rates for the middle class were also higher in the 50's & 60's than they are for the middle class today. Since there are far more middle class families and people than the rich, my concern in regard to increased taxation on middle class taxpayers is the possibility of more middle class being forced onto government assistance. A snowball effect which then reduces the number of taxpayers available to fund the government assistance making for a downward spiral. I recall years ago reading that if we taxed every billionaire and every multimillionaire 100%, if we took all of their money, it would hardly make a dent in government spending.

The tax rates were higher, in general, back in the 50s and 60s, than they are now.

Trump isn't cutting anyone.

He's requiring abled-bodied to get part time jobs.

In today's world the longterm trend has been for the middle class shrink at both ends -- there are more rich people as well as more poor people than there were, say, back in the late 1960's. So, these days, higher taxes on the rich (and the upper middle class) would raise more money than it did "years ago," assuming that what you read "years ago" was accurate at the time. But I think there's plenty of room to raise taxes safely for people above the median and especially for people high above the median.

In my opinion the government should avoid, if at all possible, raising taxes on anyone with income below the median.

But what if they just CAN'T get jobs, for whatever reason?

Like, they take lots of vacations, and a job would intrude on that?