In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to Sistersledge's comment:

skeeter food is not cheap !

Facts mean nothing to you, do they?  Read the article.  food is cheaper here than anywhere on the globe.

But, maybe you need to spend less time in the frozen pizza aisle, or more time at Market Basket and less time at Whole Foods.

Food is cheap.  And plentiful.  So plentiful we turn 40% of our corn into fuel.  40%.  Think about it.

Yep.

skeeter I go shopping every week .... sometimes twice a week ..... food is not cheap  ....... I know how to count .

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

Starvation is simply what would happen if people like Paul Ryan got their way, and a budget was passed that eventually left for domestic spending a smaller dollar amount than it now costs to run the FBI.....   

Because then the entire food-provision arm of the safety net would have to shut down. And no, don't give me that charity nonsense. That it is nonsense is why these programs started in the first place.

Nonetheless, I'm willing to bet that some of the homeless are pretty close to starvation but likely die of disease first - the ones too mentally ill to seek help, etc.

However, how much "hunger" do you think should be tolerable? If a single mom's kid eats one decent meal a day? Two?

As someone who has also worked quite hard, I simply do not see that in the richest country on Earth, we should be saying "eh, as long as they aren't dying in the streets, it's enough".

I'd be all behind stronger enforcement to cut down on abuse of the programs. But I want the programs there.

Humans have a nasty habit of putting too little stock in circumstance when they have worked hard and gotten ahead.

No hunger should be tolerable.  None!  That`s why I give a ton to charity and certainly do my part to support these programs.  We have to have these programs but, we have to stop the abuse.  We also should be striving to reduce the numbers on SNAP and EBT by growing and creating jobs.  Less dependency is a good thing. 

I`m not so sure some of the 47% think this way.

Maybe we should start making things in this country again. Maybe there should be higher tarrifs on imported goods. Maybe business shouldn't be allowed to hire undocumented workers.Maybe CEOs should be held more accountable and not offshore production because it makes their bottom line look better.

Absolutely agree!    Let`s start with Jeff Immelt from GE.  One of America`s wealthiest companies, Immelt made $29 million last year and GE paid ZERO U.S Taxes. 

Oh......and BTW, he`s Obama`s Job Czar!

Sure! We can start with him, but let's not finish with him. I gotta say, I've new respect for you! I thought you were one of those people who thought the rich had gotten there because of "hard work and being job creators" and that taxing large corporations stifled expansion. But now? I respect you to a certain extent!

rich people didn't get rich due to hard work and being job creators?

So, are you saying successful people are bad people? Did all of them become rich solely by taking advantage of people?  If you are rich, you got there through nefarious means?

typical liberal illogic, that rich people are all Snidley Whiplash's.  

i smell jealousy. And a poor understanding of what it takes to be successful.

Hey Skooter, slow down there. Go back and read the thread. I'm not saying successful people are all bad no more than I'm saying they're all good. But sure, some of them get there through nefarious means. Off-shore work or profits? Hire illegals at sub par wages? Cut workers hours to avoid paying for benefits? All for your bottom line? Well yes, I've got a problem with being "successful". I guess the definition of "success" varies from person to person. Is it how much money you make? Is it pride in a job well done? Is it having children? Is it a big house? Is it being in love with someone who loves you? Is it happiness? Or is it simply being content?

So, you focus on the few bad successful people, and ignore the majority good successful people?

Nice topic shift into other measurements of success.  I actually agree with that part. 

Considering this thread is about the millions on food-stamps would you be focusing your contempt on the few bad poor people, or the majority of good ones?

Neither.  Focusing on a government program that is not needed.  Food Stamps are not needed at all.  It is a program that attacks a non-existent problem, and in fact, makes it worse.

If you can't find a way to feed yourself in a country awash with food, soup kitchens, giving people, and opportunity, then your problems are not being solved  by the government buying you food.  

The only way to prove you are wrong is to stop the SNAP program, and all federal subsidies that go to food and agriculture.  If people die, you were wrong.  

But the best evidence you are wrong comes from what the country looked like prior to these programs.  The US Government started getting into the hunger business in 1932.  Before that there were plenty of rich people, and plenty of charities, and plenty of soup kitchens, and plenty of churches, but millions died of starvation.

You're convinced, based not on history (is looking at these prior conditions an example of living in the past?) or looking at other countries (85,000 Mexicans died of starvation in the last decade) but from your gut, that these programs are useless.  But your gut isn't grumbling, so everything everywhere must be fine.  What more can really be said?

You'll never see the cause of death listed as 'starvation'. The cause of death will be septicemia, or pneumonia or dehydration because that is what actually killed the victims. But for all practical purposes thousands of great depression and dust bowl era people starved to death: they died because they couldn't get sufficient food.

In response to Sistersledge's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to Sistersledge's comment:

skeeter food is not cheap !

Facts mean nothing to you, do they?  Read the article.  food is cheaper here than anywhere on the globe.

But, maybe you need to spend less time in the frozen pizza aisle, or more time at Market Basket and less time at Whole Foods.

Food is cheap.  And plentiful.  So plentiful we turn 40% of our corn into fuel.  40%.  Think about it.

Yep.

skeeter I go shopping every week .... sometimes twice a week ..... food is not cheap  ....... I know how to count .

OK.  I ran the numbers.  Everything I spent in grocery stores, food for me, paper towels, food for the soup kitchen, snacks I bring to the office for everyone else, $107.78 per week on average.  (isn't quicken great, BTW?)

So,  I might be a little bit low on the food.  Maybe 80 a week.  Still, it is CHEAP.

I spend about twice that every week for gas.

So, I repeat:  If you and your significant other can't scrape together even 80 a week, maybe it's your priority.  That, and there are plenty of free meals out there.  you might be hungry from time to time (I am) but you will not starve.  Starving is the claim.

It isn't happening.

As an aside, I buy almost the same food week in, week out, for years. the 2011 number is 95 dollars.  That's an 11% increase, i.e. inflation in the last year.  

but, there' no inflation, and the Obama eoconomy is grand.

Hres' my summary of this:

Liberals havenot produced ONE fact to support their point of view.  For them, it is an emotional argument:  people are poor, they must need food, government should provide it.

Conservatives point out food is cheap and plentiful. 

SNAP needs to go away, it is not needed.  It is a buggy whip from the 30's, and does not meet a current actual need.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Hres' my summary of this:

Liberals havenot produced ONE fact to support their point of view.  For them, it is an emotional argument:  people are poor, they must need food, government should provide it.

Conservatives point out food is cheap and plentiful. 

SNAP needs to go away, it is not needed.  It is a buggy whip from the 30's, and does not meet a current actual need.

Your summary is deeply flawed.  

Fact 1: before federal government intervention, countless died of starvation

Fact 2: inches from the US border, there is no government intervention to prevent starvation, and thousands of Mexicans die each year

Fact 3: The average per-capita food-stamp outlay is $30/week - the exact amount Skeeter professes to subsist on

Fact 4: $30 > $0

Fact 5: Some poor people have children

What exactly were your facts again?   Cheap and plentiful are relative terms.

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Hres' my summary of this:

Liberals havenot produced ONE fact to support their point of view.  For them, it is an emotional argument:  people are poor, they must need food, government should provide it.

Conservatives point out food is cheap and plentiful. 

SNAP needs to go away, it is not needed.  It is a buggy whip from the 30's, and does not meet a current actual need.

Your summary is deeply flawed.  

Fact 1: before federal government intervention, countless died of starvation

Fact 2: inches from the US border, there is no government intervention to prevent starvation, and thousands of Mexicans die each year

Fact 3: The average per-capita food-stamp outlay is $30/week - the exact amount Skeeter professes to subsist on

Fact 4: $30 > $0

Fact 5: Some poor people have children

What exactly were your facts again?   Cheap and plentiful are relative terms.

  Conme on.  Just admit you have lost the argument.So your facts are:

   There used to be starvation.

   Mexico has starvation.

   Average food stamp outlay is $30.

   Poor people have children.

So, tell me:  how does this make the argument we need food stamps? Particularly in a country where food is cheap and plentifuly?  Is your argument really that, except for Government, these people woudl starve?  Really?  That's not only weak, but is is morally bankrupt.  You see a hungry person, YOU feed them.

And, the slap or smear at my eating responsibly?  weakens you argument further.  This is not about me, but you know that.

you are simply making an emotional argument about a problem that does not exist, save for the one government has created by providing food stamps.

And you seal your argument with that well trodden "it's for the children".  If these parents can't feed their children in a country where food is plentiful and cheap, their problem runs much deeper than food, and, if government is really driving this, we need to consider taking children away from parents that can't or won't do what is necessary to feed their children, for the good of the children.  That makes sense, doesn't it?.  I mean, you want to do this for the children, right?

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Hres' my summary of this:

Liberals havenot produced ONE fact to support their point of view.  For them, it is an emotional argument:  people are poor, they must need food, government should provide it.

Conservatives point out food is cheap and plentiful. 

SNAP needs to go away, it is not needed.  It is a buggy whip from the 30's, and does not meet a current actual need.

Your summary is deeply flawed.  

Fact 1: before federal government intervention, countless died of starvation

Fact 2: inches from the US border, there is no government intervention to prevent starvation, and thousands of Mexicans die each year

Fact 3: The average per-capita food-stamp outlay is $30/week - the exact amount Skeeter professes to subsist on

Fact 4: $30 > $0

Fact 5: Some poor people have children

What exactly were your facts again?   Cheap and plentiful are relative terms.

  Conme on.  Just admit you have lost the argument.So your facts are:

   There used to be starvation.

   Mexico has starvation.

   Average food stamp outlay is $30.

   Poor people have children.

So, tell me:  how does this make the argument we need food stamps? Particularly in a country where food is cheap and plentifuly?  Is your argument really that, except for Government, these people woudl starve?  Really?  That's not only weak, but is is morally bankrupt.  You see a hungry person, YOU feed them.

And, the slap or smear at my eating responsibly?  weakens you argument further.  This is not about me, but you know that.

you are simply making an emotional argument about a problem that does not exist, save for the one government has created by providing food stamps.

And you seal your argument with that well trodden "it's for the children".  If these parents can't feed their children in a country where food is plentiful and cheap, their problem runs much deeper than food, and, if government is really driving this, we need to consider taking children away from parents that can't or won't do what is necessary to feed their children, for the good of the children.  That makes sense, doesn't it?.  I mean, you want to do this for the children, right?

You are the morally bankrupt one.  There are twenty million people in the country who are unemployed or underemployed.  There are a million odd folks that are homeless.  Food is "plentiful and cheap" (a relative term) only if you have money to pay for it.  A lot of people obviously don't have the money. Hoping that charity will take care of this problem is simply absurd.  The government program is there precisely because charity has proven it cannot fulfill this need.  But you don't care.  The ideology is more important than the human reality.

Rewarding laziness with comfort will only build a weaker nation.

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Hres' my summary of this:

Liberals havenot produced ONE fact to support their point of view.  For them, it is an emotional argument:  people are poor, they must need food, government should provide it.

Conservatives point out food is cheap and plentiful. 

SNAP needs to go away, it is not needed.  It is a buggy whip from the 30's, and does not meet a current actual need.

Your summary is deeply flawed.  

Fact 1: before federal government intervention, countless died of starvation

Fact 2: inches from the US border, there is no government intervention to prevent starvation, and thousands of Mexicans die each year

Fact 3: The average per-capita food-stamp outlay is $30/week - the exact amount Skeeter professes to subsist on

Fact 4: $30 > $0

Fact 5: Some poor people have children

What exactly were your facts again?   Cheap and plentiful are relative terms.

  Conme on.  Just admit you have lost the argument.So your facts are:

   There used to be starvation.

   Mexico has starvation.

   Average food stamp outlay is $30.

   Poor people have children.

So, tell me:  how does this make the argument we need food stamps? Particularly in a country where food is cheap and plentifuly?  Is your argument really that, except for Government, these people woudl starve?  Really?  That's not only weak, but is is morally bankrupt.  You see a hungry person, YOU feed them.

And, the slap or smear at my eating responsibly?  weakens you argument further.  This is not about me, but you know that.

you are simply making an emotional argument about a problem that does not exist, save for the one government has created by providing food stamps.

And you seal your argument with that well trodden "it's for the children".  If these parents can't feed their children in a country where food is plentiful and cheap, their problem runs much deeper than food, and, if government is really driving this, we need to consider taking children away from parents that can't or won't do what is necessary to feed their children, for the good of the children.  That makes sense, doesn't it?.  I mean, you want to do this for the children, right?

@ skeeter it's always about what it is the best for the USA with me .....I know I must have hit a nerve with that $50,000 dollars a plate comment .... but anyways Happy St Patrick's Day .. we'll drive the snakes out of this country too !

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQyY4bLbgrM

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

In response to NO MO O's comment:

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Hres' my summary of this:

Liberals havenot produced ONE fact to support their point of view.  For them, it is an emotional argument:  people are poor, they must need food, government should provide it.

Conservatives point out food is cheap and plentiful. 

SNAP needs to go away, it is not needed.  It is a buggy whip from the 30's, and does not meet a current actual need.

Your summary is deeply flawed.  

Fact 1: before federal government intervention, countless died of starvation

Fact 2: inches from the US border, there is no government intervention to prevent starvation, and thousands of Mexicans die each year

Fact 3: The average per-capita food-stamp outlay is $30/week - the exact amount Skeeter professes to subsist on

Fact 4: $30 > $0

Fact 5: Some poor people have children

What exactly were your facts again?   Cheap and plentiful are relative terms.

  Conme on.  Just admit you have lost the argument.So your facts are:

   There used to be starvation.

   Mexico has starvation.

   Average food stamp outlay is $30.

   Poor people have children.

So, tell me:  how does this make the argument we need food stamps? Particularly in a country where food is cheap and plentifuly?  Is your argument really that, except for Government, these people woudl starve?  Really?  That's not only weak, but is is morally bankrupt.  You see a hungry person, YOU feed them.

And, the slap or smear at my eating responsibly?  weakens you argument further.  This is not about me, but you know that.

you are simply making an emotional argument about a problem that does not exist, save for the one government has created by providing food stamps.

And you seal your argument with that well trodden "it's for the children".  If these parents can't feed their children in a country where food is plentiful and cheap, their problem runs much deeper than food, and, if government is really driving this, we need to consider taking children away from parents that can't or won't do what is necessary to feed their children, for the good of the children.  That makes sense, doesn't it?.  I mean, you want to do this for the children, right?

You are the morally bankrupt one.  There are twenty million people in the country who are unemployed or underemployed.  There are a million odd folks that are homeless.  Food is "plentiful and cheap" (a relative term) only if you have money to pay for it.  A lot of people obviously don't have the money. Hoping that charity will take care of this problem is simply absurd.  The government program is there precisely because charity has proven it cannot fulfill this need.  But you don't care.  The ideology is more important than the human reality.

Rewarding laziness with comfort will only build a weaker nation.

A life without compassion is a life not worth living.  

All those millions of people are "lazy"?  Right...  

You are not a real person: no brain and no heart.

All lazy? No....but MANY...yup. 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Hres' my summary of this:

Liberals havenot produced ONE fact to support their point of view.  For them, it is an emotional argument:  people are poor, they must need food, government should provide it.

Conservatives point out food is cheap and plentiful. 

SNAP needs to go away, it is not needed.  It is a buggy whip from the 30's, and does not meet a current actual need.

Your summary is deeply flawed.  

Fact 1: before federal government intervention, countless died of starvation

Fact 2: inches from the US border, there is no government intervention to prevent starvation, and thousands of Mexicans die each year

Fact 3: The average per-capita food-stamp outlay is $30/week - the exact amount Skeeter professes to subsist on

Fact 4: $30 > $0

Fact 5: Some poor people have children

What exactly were your facts again?   Cheap and plentiful are relative terms.

  Conme on.  Just admit you have lost the argument.So your facts are:

   There used to be starvation.

   Mexico has starvation.

   Average food stamp outlay is $30.

   Poor people have children.

So, tell me:  how does this make the argument we need food stamps? Particularly in a country where food is cheap and plentifuly?  Is your argument really that, except for Government, these people woudl starve?  Really?  That's not only weak, but is is morally bankrupt.  You see a hungry person, YOU feed them.

And, the slap or smear at my eating responsibly?  weakens you argument further.  This is not about me, but you know that.

you are simply making an emotional argument about a problem that does not exist, save for the one government has created by providing food stamps.

And you seal your argument with that well trodden "it's for the children".  If these parents can't feed their children in a country where food is plentiful and cheap, their problem runs much deeper than food, and, if government is really driving this, we need to consider taking children away from parents that can't or won't do what is necessary to feed their children, for the good of the children.  That makes sense, doesn't it?.  I mean, you want to do this for the children, right?

Where is the support for your argument?  My facts show that many Americans died of starvation before these programs were in place.  Your counter was that was too long ago to count, and that we have so much food in America that it would surely find its way to peoples mouths in depressed areas of the country.  That's not a fact - that's a hunch, but I countered it anyway - if we have that much food in the country, why doesn't it find it's way an inch across the border?

I wasn't slapping or smearing you, and the fact that you took it that way leads me to believe you're not the objective one in our exchange.  I was expressing skepticism to your dollar count, which you were using to support really the only tenet of your argument - that food is so cheap that anybody could find enough to survive.  Your dollar count, by the way, has already nearly doubled in subsequent posts.

My point on children is that whatever amount of money you decide is the bare minimum it takes for a person to feed himself, every child is a multiplier.  So even at $30/week, that's $600/month for a family of five.  That's not necessarily found in the couch cushions.

"President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief."

In response to Sistersledge's comment:

@ skeeter it's always about what it is the best for the USA with me .....I know I must have hit a nerve with that $50,000 dollars a plate comment .... but anyways Happy St Patrick's Day .. we'll drive the snakes out of this country too !

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQyY4bLbgrM

Well, no you didn't hit a nerve.

if you think attacking me personally means you are right, well, shows how weak and unsubstantiated you appoint of view is.

In response to tacobreath's comment:

"President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief."

There aren't any accurate numbers prior to 1932, but even 110 deaths in NYC extrapolates to 4,000 nation-wide, and that is starvation only - there would be many more that are hunger-related or mal-nutrition related leading to disease.  And that was two years after the federal involvement began.

There's a report by a Russian researcher that suggests the number of hunger-related deaths was 7 million ... http://www.infowars.com/researcher-famine-killed-7-million-in-us-during-great-depression/

I don't believe it was that high, and I'm not suggesting ditching SNAP would throw us into a great depression - I'm just explaining why my count of starving Americans before federal government intervention is vague, but high.

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

In response to NO MO O's comment:

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Hres' my summary of this:

Liberals havenot produced ONE fact to support their point of view.  For them, it is an emotional argument:  people are poor, they must need food, government should provide it.

Conservatives point out food is cheap and plentiful. 

SNAP needs to go away, it is not needed.  It is a buggy whip from the 30's, and does not meet a current actual need.

Your summary is deeply flawed.  

Fact 1: before federal government intervention, countless died of starvation

Fact 2: inches from the US border, there is no government intervention to prevent starvation, and thousands of Mexicans die each year

Fact 3: The average per-capita food-stamp outlay is $30/week - the exact amount Skeeter professes to subsist on

Fact 4: $30 > $0

Fact 5: Some poor people have children

What exactly were your facts again?   Cheap and plentiful are relative terms.

  Conme on.  Just admit you have lost the argument.So your facts are:

   There used to be starvation.

   Mexico has starvation.

   Average food stamp outlay is $30.

   Poor people have children.

So, tell me:  how does this make the argument we need food stamps? Particularly in a country where food is cheap and plentifuly?  Is your argument really that, except for Government, these people woudl starve?  Really?  That's not only weak, but is is morally bankrupt.  You see a hungry person, YOU feed them.

And, the slap or smear at my eating responsibly?  weakens you argument further.  This is not about me, but you know that.

you are simply making an emotional argument about a problem that does not exist, save for the one government has created by providing food stamps.

And you seal your argument with that well trodden "it's for the children".  If these parents can't feed their children in a country where food is plentiful and cheap, their problem runs much deeper than food, and, if government is really driving this, we need to consider taking children away from parents that can't or won't do what is necessary to feed their children, for the good of the children.  That makes sense, doesn't it?.  I mean, you want to do this for the children, right?

You are the morally bankrupt one.  There are twenty million people in the country who are unemployed or underemployed.  There are a million odd folks that are homeless.  Food is "plentiful and cheap" (a relative term) only if you have money to pay for it.  A lot of people obviously don't have the money. Hoping that charity will take care of this problem is simply absurd.  The government program is there precisely because charity has proven it cannot fulfill this need.  But you don't care.  The ideology is more important than the human reality.

Rewarding laziness with comfort will only build a weaker nation.

A life without compassion is a life not worth living.  

All those millions of people are "lazy"?  Right...  

You are not a real person: no brain and no heart.

Where is the equity you cherish when the minority of a nation work hard to get by while supporting the criminals, dead beats and those that do not belong here/

How much more can the middle class working bear before they too become impoverished?

How much more can they be taxed so their tax money goes overseas?

Do you believe there even is a breaking point?