Food stamps do little to alleviate hunger; increase government dependence.

You are defining "safety net" on your terms, in a way that supports your political/philosophical ideals. And you have decided that the term "safety net" by definition is preceded by the words "brief" and "temporary."

Are not a huge percentage of SNAP beneficiaries children? Don't they deserve a "safety net" from the misfortune of being born to parents who can't make ends meet? And is it not reasonable that that "safety net" would stretch for 18 years, until adulthood?

 

I'd like to think that at some point within the 18 years of giving birth, a parent might figure out a way to feed their child.

If we're assuming the parent is even 17 at birth, then we're saying that a 35-year-old, hasn't been able to acquire the skills needed to feed their child, despite 18 years of assistance.

I think that's concerning, and can't be simply blamed on "our economy".

 

Indeed.

But if not, how is that the child's fault? How is SNAP not a "safety net" for said child because an arbitrary amount of time has passed? Is SNAP merely a "safety net" against temporary unemployment? Is it not a "safety net" for children against the circumstances of poverty, generally? Including incompetent parents?

Also, if within 18 years, a parent is supposed to figure out a way to feed their children, then why aren't they? You blame SNAP, specifically, and public assistance, more generally, for removing motivation to work. That is a very oversimplified answer to a very, very, very complex question.

 

And if they don't, and that child grows up hungry and angry and probably underdeveloped mentally and emotionally, well that works out well because young criminals are perfect fodder for the gun fanatics whose wildest dreams are to kill somebody legally.

There are real answers to that problem (both in the sense of explaining it and fixing it), but you won't like them.

 

Thank you.

 

We're a couple of posts away from YF's idea for mass orphanages for all the kids whose parents don't give them enough to eat.

 

People who have earned a modicum of success in this country through a combination of hard work/talent/perseverance are not going to feel ashamed about expecting that of others. Many people on this board see lifelong SNAP recipients and think ,"Damn, the system has screwed this guy over". Other people look at the same guy and think, "Damn, this guy has made so many mistakes in his life, and he continues to make them. Why doesn't he get his shit together?".

The two sides are NEVER going to agree on this, but we'll continue to argue over each other til the last day of this board. Nobody will change anybody else's opinion.

 

People say this all the time, and I disagree. Is someone going to change Old_Tony's mind? No. Is someone going to budge Baron's mind? Absolutely not. But I would say that the vast majority of us in the political middle are more than receptive to having our ideas further shaped and sculpted. It's a big reason we want to discuss these matters with others to begin with.

 

Not having food stamps at all does little to alleviate hunger.

 

In the Wal-Mart employees thread, somebody talked about how a news editor's salary was low enough to qualify his family for food stamps.

In other words, how many people on food stamps actually hold jobs — jobs that they do well — and simply don't make enough money to begin with?

And wouldn't the solution be to raise wages so they don't need food stamps?

Isn't it better for private employers to pay wages that allow people to buy the basics they need, rather than the government stepping in to pick up the slack?

This argument can also be applied to the Earned Income Tax Credit. If you think about it, the EITC is merely a means for employers to keep wages lower than they might be otherwise because the government will take up the slack.

And to whoever wants to say "government regulation keeps wages low," be specific or I'm not interested in that remark.