Can the U.S. Government stop continuing Cash Assistance and Food Stamps?

Since 1935 when the Great Depression hit, President Roosevelt proposed the Welfare and Food Stamp Act of 1935. It was provide money and food assistance to those who are unemployed and unable to find work. Now our country is out of the depression and our economy is growing. Should the U.S. government stop welfare and food stamps assistance completely. So far most republicans want to because they don't want to pay taxes to cover the poor. The democrats however want to keep it going.

Can there be any new laws to change the welfare and food stamp act?

I was proposing to have welfare and stamps only to be available to the disabled and single parents who have not found work within 5 years.

Any Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny

Since 1935 when the Great Depression hit, President Roosevelt proposed the Welfare and Food Stamp Act of 1935. It was provide money and food assistance to those who are unemployed and unable to find work. Now our country is out of the depression and our economy is growing. Should the U.S. government stop welfare and food stamps assistance completely.
No

So far most republicans want to because they don't want to pay taxes to cover the poor. The democrats however want to keep it going.

Can there be any new laws to change the welfare and food stamp act?
Well, food stamps benefits were recently reduced. Benefits and cost of living are related.

I was proposing to have welfare and stamps only to be available to the disabled and single parents who have not found work within 5 years.
Including mentally disabled? There are different reasons a person or a family requests assistance.

Any Thoughts?

---

.................................................. ...........................

Can the U.S. Government stop continuing Cash Assistance and Food Stamps?

No. Not without political and social consequences and repercussions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Can the U.S. Government stop continuing Cash Assistance and Food Stamps?

No. Not without political and social consequences and repercussions.

---

Yes, except for how it chooses to run the District of Columbia, military bases, and other federal venues, the federal government was never constitutionally delegated the power to run such programs. They could be block granted to the states and phased out at the federal level.

BUT, the federal government presently hands out roughly 70% more corporate welfare benefits than benefits to the poor. We should consider attacking and getting rid of all corporate welfare first. Perhaps, as a compromise, we should get rid of $10 of corporate welfare for every $1 of federal welfare for the poor block granted to states.

It should be noted that this is funded though the agriculture bill. It feeds people and props up 'farmers'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

It should be noted that this is funded though the agriculture bill. It feeds people and props up 'farmers'.

---

You are correct to put 'farmers' in parenthesis. Much of this money propping up farmers goes to investors parking their cash in farmland and thus drives up the prices for that farmland. Much of what meddling farm policies of the DOA does drives up the price of operating a farm for small farmers and has the effect of running them out of business. I live on a farm and throw all the USDA mailings in the trash. The USDA at the county level is 90% make work for bureaucrats and at the federal level distributes federal welfare on the corporate side.

Example: One company farm near where I live owned about 1,500 acres near here. It put all of its cropland into 'set-aside' to receive government subsidies for not growing anything there. So instead of four or five family occupied farms with kids going to school and families otherwise being a part of the community, the land laid bare and hurt our local economy. Meanwhile the same company owned thousands of acres of better farmland in Illinois. The USDA allowed this company to set aside all it's poorer cropland up here so it could plant wall to wall on its more valuable land in Illinois. Other smaller farmers in Illinois had to set aside good land on their home farm to be in the same USDA program making them less competitive with this company.

I hear you, but neither the dems or pubs will relinquish corporate welfare and favors to those who rise them to power. The poor will always be target one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

...We should consider attacking and getting rid of all corporate welfare first. Perhaps, as a compromise, we should get rid of $10 of corporate welfare for every $1 of federal welfare for the poor block granted to states.

---

I think there are cases where it needs to be limited and fraud has to continue to be seriously weeded out. Welfare cannot be thought of as a free ride and people who chose to keep having children to keep welfare a continuous cycle are out there. Seriously we have to take responsiblity for ourselves in this world but at the same time I really understand that times are not like they used to be and that people are falling on hard luck. The problems of this world are never going to be solved without... they just keep popping up in different forms.

They also figure welfare money is being used back in the economy but where's the limit?

Fraud is an epidemic in public assistance. Some people structure their lives to take advantage of it, others outright lie. Government won't seriously tackle fraud because when the voter is dependent upon the Government, they will vote for those who keep the cashflow moving, and oppose those who want to stop it. Hence the death spiral of a society.

http://www.hoaxorfact.com/Politics/1...-analysis.html

We should consider attacking and getting rid of all corporate welfare first
YES! Instead of creating jobs in the US, it has diminished wages and buying power here, and consolidated wealth at the top, where really, they will not or cannot spend the proportion of money here to make up the difference for the lack down the line.

The poor will always be a target
NO. We need to stop this. America has done it before, letting the rich run things for themselves at the expense of the great majority of people. How is it that this Great Majority either votes against its self interest, or worse yet, does not vote at all? Our votes can outweigh all their money if we use them wisely. We have done it before. MUST do it again, asap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny

Can there be any new laws to change the welfare and food stamp act?

I was proposing to have welfare and stamps only to be available to the disabled and single parents who have not found work within 5 years.

Any Thoughts?

---

The Federal food assistance programs are a beneficial and essential service for many in this country. With that said, I believe they are horribly inefficient and the ideal environment for fraud [[From both recipients of the aid and retailers).
IMO the program should return to one that provides the majority of food assistance directly to those in need. Ship all non perishable staples directly to consumers with restricted labeling so that they can't resold on the open market [[This is how it used to be done). Recipients can choose what they receive each week to make sure they are getting something they both need and want. This way the government can use their buying power to reduce prices and cut the costs of the markup they pay to retailers. Not only that, but our struggling postal service would benefit greatly from the added business. Perishable items can still be made available at for profit retailers, but with a list of appropriate items [[I'm not saying the poor don't deserve the occasional luxury, but the government should not be paying for shopping carts full of junk food or $5 gas station hot dogs).

Commods, yes! Let's see, in the box was powdered milk. a big brick of Velveeta like cheese, several large cans of meat -- beef, turkey, chicken, pork. Dried beans and peas. Huge bags of cereal like puffed rice, powdered eggs, cans of peanut butter and butter, flour, sugar, salt, corn meal, oatmeal. You got so much per family member. Most of it was pretty good, but I am not convinced puffed rice is actually food.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papasito

Fraud is an epidemic in public assistance. Some people structure their lives to take advantage of it, others outright lie. Government won't seriously tackle fraud because when the voter is dependent upon the Government, they will vote for those who keep the cashflow moving, and oppose those who want to stop it. Hence the death spiral of a society.

http://www.hoaxorfact.com/Politics/1...-analysis.html

---

Fraud is an epidemic in corporate tax loopholes. Some companies structure their businesses to take advantage of it, others outright lie.
Government won't seriously tackle fraud because when the politician is dependent upon the campaign donations, they will vote for those bills which keep the cashflow moving, and oppose those who stop it.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/03/an-...te-tax-breaks/

So it's decided...... cut all domestic welfare [[individuals and corporations), bundle that money up into a cargo jet and air drop it across Europe, the Mid East and whatever is left will continue on to Asia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TKshreve

So it's decided...... cut all domestic welfare [[individuals and corporations), bundle that money up into a cargo jet and air drop it across Europe, the Mid East and whatever is left will continue on to Asia.

---

If we don't keep subsidizing Europe, Europeans would have to pay for their own defense. How would Europeans then afford marvelous social benefits, their expanding Muslim servant caste, annoying Eurocrats, and month long vacations?

I've heard semi-convincing evidence that the federal government could simply give a living wage [[enough to cover food and basic shelter) to every US citizen if we:

1. Completely phased out all existing welfare programs, including social security, food stamps, school lunch programs, pension guarantees, etc...

2. Eliminated the minimum wage [[it wouldn't be needed anymore)

3. Reduced military spending by 20% [[entirely doable)

If it meant the government would get out of the business of regulating every possible segment of the economy, I'd be all for this. Simply giving people money is a much more efficient method of welfare, anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBMcB

I've heard semi-convincing evidence that the federal government could simply give a living wage [[enough to cover food and basic shelter) to every US citizen if we:

1. Completely phased out all existing welfare programs, including social security, food stamps, school lunch programs, pension guarantees, etc...

2. Eliminated the minimum wage [[it wouldn't be needed anymore)

3. Reduced military spending by 20% [[entirely doable)

If it meant the government would get out of the business of regulating every possible segment of the economy, I'd be all for this. Simply giving people money is a much more efficient method of welfare, anyways.

---

Yeah, the government has no business regulating the economy. Corporations can do that just fine.

So let's eliminate welfare, food stamps, and the minimum wage. While we're at it, let's eliminate access to health insurance, defund education, institute "Right-to-Work" laws, and then allow unfettered access to guns so the destitute masses can shoot the shit out of each other.

With the cost savings, we can bribe, er "coerce" foreign manufacturers to locate in the United States, where they can pay half the wages and none of the benefits that their workers back home receive.

I mean, it all works *so well* in the Deep South, what could possibly go wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I mean, it all works *so well* in the Deep South, what could possibly go wrong?

---

So you are against giving everyone a minimum income? OK.

They tried this in Canada and it worked out pretty well:
https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-w...98745-cb9fbb39

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevgoblue

Fraud is an epidemic in corporate tax loopholes. Some companies structure their businesses to take advantage of it, others outright lie.
Government won't seriously tackle fraud because when the politician is dependent upon the campaign donations, they will vote for those bills which keep the cashflow moving, and oppose those who stop it.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/03/an-...te-tax-breaks/

---

Let's keep in mind that holds true for both political parties.
Our politicians are bought and paid for.

But that doesn't change the fact that some folks are driving Escalades and Expeditions, taking their 5 kids to the pediatrician and paying for it with a Medicaid card. Something isn't right.
Meanwhile the working poor have no health care, are raising kids with no help, and can't get help even if they try.

Fraud is Significant :

Quote:

---

If the fraud rate is only 2%-3%, how much money could it really be costing us? Well…these low rates would mean that roughly 785,000 to 1.2 Million families are illegally receiving welfare benefits. At the average rate of $11,500 per year, this is costing the tax payers between $9.0 - $13.5 Billion dollars every year.

---

http://www.roanen.com/1/post/2012/04...osting-us.html

I personally know a woman who committed over a million dollars in Medicaid fraud, I reported her more than 4 times to the appropriate fraud hotlines and agencies, and they were not interested whatsoever. Was it because she was Hispanic? I don't know. Honestly I don't think the agencies care.

What I do know is if I, a middle aged white working male, committed said fraud, they would be on me like a starving bulldog on a juicy New York Strip.