Lawmakers Find $21 a Week Doesn't Buy a Lot of Groceries

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Ok...let's not make it into a name calling thing...Bush is not a point in this...fact of the matter is, food stamps and the issues arising from it has been a thorn in the side of many a president since it's inception in the late 1930's

Who is name calling? I was simply searching for a definition for the term "working people" -- a definition Democrats often attribute to people who actually don't work. I would still love someone to tell me what "working people" are for the purposes of GP's statement.

Reagan tried to make cutbacks in the 80s and Clinton instituted welfare to work programs in the 90s.

They didn't go anywhere near far enough.

But now, for the few changes and buget increases that they have made, someone is starting to wakeup to the fact that the money the put into this program doesn't help the poor eat an adequate amount and variety of food.

Show me some starving poor folks.. like the kind you see in 3rd world countries. Then you can make this claim. The fact is that in America, our "poor" have an astounding rate of obesity. Here are some other fun facts about American "poor" courtesy of the Heritage Foundation (their facts were obtained from the Census Bureau):

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

• Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Let's face it, the policy has failed because where it was supposed to work for the better good in emergency situations, it caused more dependency than anything, and yanking the rug from under it would be seen and a drastic and inhuman way to deal with the situation....

I agree. I don't claim to be an expert in solving this problem. I'd like to see a lifetime cap instituted on the amount of benefits anyone may receive over their lifetime. I'm not sure of the feasibility of programs like the old T.V.A. or W.P.A. of the great depression, but I'd sure like to see someone look into 'em.

All you ever hear are stopgaps being discussed -- never solutions. Never ultimatums for people who simply choose to be poor. If they can make it on $21/week. Fine. If they could make it on less, I say we cut 'em back.

damned if you do...damned if you dont.

Wrong attitude