[VivaLasViejas]

Originally Posted by Suesquatch

A lot of people in this area are employed full time and still need food stamps and Medicaid. They are hardly people who "refuse to help themselves."

Exactly. And they are the ones who SHOULD get some help; nobody can support a family on eight or nine bucks an hour. I don't think very many people would argue that.

What sticks in the craw are the bottom-feeders who literally would rather sit at home, doing nothing, than take an honest if low-paying job........the ones who work the system and know every single angle there is to try to get more handouts. These are the ones who don't have enough to eat or a decent roof over their heads, but always seem to have cigarettes, booze, and lawyers. I have NO use for this sort, and that's because I've been in the system.........the abusers make it hard for everyone else.

[danissa]

Originally Posted by Cymy

In my house fruit is a special treat, vegetables are from a can or frozen. If I go out and buy $25 worth of fruit my kids eat it all in two days and I'm lucky if I can get a single banana or apple!

do you not have a market where you can buy fresh stuff? And, imho, the fresh stuff should be given to the kiddos! Worry about what goes into THEIR bodies and feeds their minds!

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by Jolie

HM2Viking (Quote from above post)
I was not clear enough in my post. What I was saying was that tax breaks for the upper 1% of the economy wage earners are neither justifiable (or moral) when 25% of our children are growing up in poverty. Tax cuts in the form of AMT reform are most certainly justifiable for the middle class.

Actually, you were very clear. But there are posters who disagree with your position.

None of your charts or resources change the fact that the federal government does not "spend" money on tax cuts, or "pay for" them. The federal government simply collects money from taxpayers and re-allocates it. The money does not belong to the feds, or to the recipients of entitlement programs. It belongs to the people from whose paychecks it was confiscated, and those taxpayers have a right to see their money used in a responsible manner.

Comment:My data was showing how the tax cuts are NOT confiscated from taxpayers but are being paid for through BORROWED money. Every time a road is built income is reallocated willingly or unwillingly. As taxpayers we certainly should expect efficient and well performing government.

I have never met anyone who begrudged federal benefits to those who were truly unable to provide for themselves, such as the disabled, elderly, and those who were temporarily out of work and in need of assistance for a period of time while they sought out new employment and/or education. But the 25% of American children who you state are living in poverty are not likely to be the dependents of disabled or elderly adults, or people temporarily out of work. They are likely to be the children of able-bodied parents who choose not to work, absentee fathers who choose not to take responsibility for their children, or illegal immigrants who are willing to work for substandard wages. It is absurd to expect the American taxpayer (wealthy, middle class, or otherwise) to continue to pay for those who make poor decisions and fail to provide for their own families, or show no regard for American law.

Comment:No but they are often dependendents of people who are trapped in substandard jobs. There is substantial data available to show that many of the poor are working full time and are still unable to rise above the poverty line. Any child born in the US is a citizen.

As other posters have pointed out, food stamps were never intended to provide long-term, full funding for groceries. Recipients were expected to use them temporarily to supplement their own resources to provide food for their families. That many have failed to use the program as intended does not obligate taxpayers to contribute even more money. It obligates the administrators of the program to enforce the rules!

Comment: See my comment about working poor families. We have an economy that is simply failing to deliver the goods when it comes living to wages and benefits. If we want people to work there needs to be jobs that pay well enough to make it worthwhile to go to work. For welfare reform to work it will actually cost more money than the old system. (Dave Hage of the MPLS Star Trib wrote a book that discussed this very issue at great length.)

I chuckle at your statement that the wealthy are not entitled to tax cuts, while the middle class are. Why do you think that the federal government is entitled to a greater percentage of a wealthy person's money than a middle class person's? Just who is wealthy? What makes up the middle class?

Comment: Here is an excerpt from an article that rather effectively answers your question.

I'm hardly alone in this view. Even robber barons like Andrew Carnegie (eventually) acknowleded that all wealth originates in the community and ''not in the herculean work efforts of lone individuals and hence should be returned to whence it came.'' And, Warren Buffet, the second-richest man in America, concedes that ''If you stuck me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru you'll find out how much talent is going to produce in the wrong soil.''

Herbert Simon, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, acknowledges that this societal contribution accounts for at least 90 percent of what people earn in northwest Europe and the United States. Based on this social contribution to wealth, Simon believes that moral grounds exist to warrant a flat income tax of 90 percent. In other words, as Carnegie biographer Steve Fraser urges, if wealth originated as social capital as Carnegie maintained, shouldn't that dictate a public, democratic role on its best use?

But don't the super-rich deserve their fortunes because of their hard work, pluck, and genius? I think not. For example, behind all the modern technology fortunes, one finds taxpayer-funded research and development. Bill Gates wasn't responsible for the crucial technical advances that produced the computer. His ''genius'' was to take advantage of work done at public initiative and expense.
...
Chuck Collins, economic expert and heir to the Oscar Mayer fortune, concludes, ''Yet, where would the many wealthy entrepreneurs be today without taxpayer investment in the Internet, transportation, public education, the legal system, the human genome and so on?'' To this, we must add several additional sources for the great fortunes. A partial list includes: piracy, colonial pillage, black African slaves, extermination of first nation peoples, child labor, Chinese and Irish immigrant labor (railroads) indentured servitude, eminent domain, massive (often concealed) taxpayer subsidies, worker massacres, inheritance laws, public land grabs, unfair trade practices, supporting foreign dictatorships to gain cheap labor and resources, tax policy, corporate welfare, and always, underpaid, overworked employees.

...
Self-made wealth is a myth. In the words of economic analyst Mike Laphan, ''It takes a village to raise a billionaire. Every taxpayer deserves some credit for the Forbes 400 wealth.'' So, if all production is social, where is society's dividend?

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/an...notherview-hed

Along with the Homestead Act, sweetheart development deals, tax abatement and other forms of corporate welfare. It never ceases to amaze me how many people repeat talking points without really looking at the historical evidence. One other way to look at the tax debate is that we cut programs for the poor by 34 Bn in round numbers and used that money to pay for 74 Billion in tax cuts for the most advantaged in our society. Any way that is dissected it is a wealth transfer from the poor to the super wealthy. My pointing out and questioning the morality of that decision is hardly class warfare but it is asking whether that is socially just.

[Jolie]

Comment:My data was showing how the tax cuts are NOT confiscated from taxpayers but are being paid for through BORROWED money. Every time a road is built income is reallocated willingly or unwillingly. As taxpayers we certainly should expect efficient and well performing government. Quote from HM2Viking above

Obviously, we have different perspectives on how society should "care for" those unable and/or unwilling to care for themselves. I'll simply agree to disagree on how best to address entitlement programs for the poor of our country.

But the poor understanding most Americans have of basic economics is highlighted in your first comment (above). Tax cuts are not confiscated from taxpayers. That much is true. Taxes are. And reductions in tax rates are not "paid for" by borrowing money. If tax reductions result in decreased tax revenue (which rarely happens), then it is the responsibility of our elected officials to decrease spending accordingly to stay on budget, just like every responsible individual does with his/her own personal finances. Reductions in spending do not require cutting critical social welfare programs. It is just where the politicians like to go to make the most "noise" about budget cuts. Reductions in pork and unnecessary spending would more than make up for any revenue shortfalls, but no politician wants to cut the pet projects that make him/her look important to the constituents.

Tax cuts almost always result in revenue increases because they promote an environment that encourages personal spending, strengthening the economy. It is out-of-control spending by both Democrats and Republicans that has created shortfalls in government budgets which threaten social welfare programs.

[DarrenWright]

Seeds are cheap, often free.

We had this novel thing called a GARDEN when I was growing up. Watermelon, strawberries, honeydew, rhubarb, tomatoes and more. We grew corn, onions, beans, peas, lettuce, carrots, potatoes, and every year us kids picked a corner to grow something we thought we might be interested in tending to (only if we wanted to...and I liked MORE watermelon and roasted pumpkin seeds, and the green onions before they got big). We had a pecan tree and orange tree when we lived in the south, and several apple trees and a small grape arbor.

We'd ride our bikes to a local orchard and paid a buck fifty per bucket to pick blueberries (or we picked them wild), and picked wild rasberries, blackberries, and elderberries...granted, elderberries are horrible to eat, but the jelly is good.

Our stuff was cheap, and for more natural than that stuff they try to pass off as "organic" at the grocery store.

It's not about food stamps, it's about laziness,and there is no sin in growing up poor when folks work hard and still get by, nor is there a "poor quota," meaning we don't have to keep childhood poverty below a certain number.

[Cymy]

Originally Posted by danissa

do you not have a market where you can buy fresh stuff? And, imho, the fresh stuff should be given to the kiddos! Worry about what goes into THEIR bodies and feeds their minds!

Yes, my local supermarket is cheaper than the farmers' markets. But, unfortunately, fresh fruits and vegetables are more expensive than canned and frozen. I support 5 children--one I gave birth to and am still breastfeeding at age 3 (so I do worry about what goes into my body as it then goes into his), two I adopted from Russia at ages 8 and 10 years (now 14 and 16), and two that are "foster" kids that I have had for 18 months (15 and 17 years old) but for which I get NO support at all from the state or the birthparents. The state would be giving their mentally disabled BLIND mother foodstamps and welfare if she had them, but she realized after her husband left her for her SISTER, that she just couldn't take care of them so she asked me to take them in order to keep them out of the state's foster care system which might separate them or move them to a location where their mother couldn't easily visit them--since being blind she can't drive. You know what she gets from the government as so-called "Aid to the Needy Blind"??? $26/month! She gets a total of $630 per month from the government plus $56 in foodstamps, she obviously can't work since not only is she blind but she's mentally disabled, and she can't support her kids on that. Rooms in the local bedbug-infested rooming house go for $125/week. Studio apartments start at $600/month. How are people in her position supposed to live? She wasn't always in this situation--the family had been doing OK until things imploded on them, but now she's basically been left "out in the rain." The father is long gone and out of the picture. He's chosen to ignore the kids since last summer, they haven't even gotten Christmas or birthday cards from him, much less any support. I won't pursue him for support because I don't want him to turn around and try to take the kids into an unhealthy environment--at least at my house they have a stable home life. Further, the state won't even provide these kids with health insurance, which they were getting until they moved in with me.

My husband makes enough money that we can make ends meet and way too much to even consider applying for welfare, but we can't afford luxuries, especially with me in school. I'm going to school so that in the event that someday my husband dies in a car crash I'll be able to support my family without placing a burden on the state.

So please, don't judge if you don't know the whole story. Yes, kids should get fresh fruit, but we adults also need to take care of our bodies so that we can take care of our children. I only posted my earlier message because I was agreeing with a previous poster who commented on how expensive fresh produce is, not to complain about foodstamps.

[KellNY]

Gardens are a great wonderful way to grow healthy food! And seeds are super cheap.

Excellent.

Now tell that to the people living in the ghettos, to the people living on the 5th floor of a walk up high rise, to the people who move from relative to friend to relative's house because they cannot afford rent, to people living in homeless shelters, to the people living in an appartment complex who's owners do not allow vegetable/fruit gardens, to the people who live in a basement appartment who are not permitted use of the yard.

And yes, seeds can be sown in a coffee can. But really, how many coffee cans full of plants would it take to feed one person for a day? And many plants would simply not thrive in such a confined area--watermellon, pumpkins, grapes, pecan and apple and orange trees? Most people aren't lucky enough to live in that kind of world.

Most people can't walk or bike to their local neighborhood farm, because well, they don't have a local neighborhood farm. Nor do they have wild berries to be picked-at least not enough to provide any significant sources of food.

It's very sad that so many of you assume that most of these children are born to "bottom feeders" and whatnot. Do you not realize that many of these children once were above the poverty level? Parents lose jobs. They get evicted. They get sick. They have to care for elderly parents. They get divorced or dad skips town. Yeah, he should pay child support....but since he's not, these kids should go hungry? That'll learn em!


And there certainly is something wrong with growing up poor when it means obesity, malnutrition, poor muscle mass, decreased energy, lower test scores, increased risk of DM, increased susceptibility to illnesses, increased risk for low birthweight and preterm babies, etc. There is something very wrong with that.

And to pop your Bootstrapping Bubble here, when other kids grow up poor, they're more likely to grow up to be poor adults, and it hurts the whole economy. And that effects you, so you should care, if not in a humanitarian way.

[Suesquatch]

Originally Posted by DarrenWright

We had this novel thing called a GARDEN when I was growing up.

Growing up in New York City, a garden was, indeed, novel.

[rngreenhorn]

I doubt any of us are against helping feed people who are disadvantaged.

It is true that we all don't have the same chances in life. Some people who grew up in the culture of poverty are going to have to work harder than some to rise above it. Unfortunelty some will not make it.

However, I think gov Kulongoski's idea is somewhat misguided. For starters, before asking for more money, maybe the gov't should work on tax programs to decrease the income gap (if that is what they are worried about), decreasing corporate wellfare etc, before asking the average joe to pay more. Show us some true reform that helps the middle class, then ask us to contribute more... not business as usual.

Also, this is my govenor, what your article doesn't mention is that Oregon is actually advertising to get more people on food stamps. Because they say, "some people who are eligible don't know it." Well, I think if you truly can't pay for food, you are going to look into getting help. (Maybe I am wrong).

Also, as for as fruits and veggies being too expensive. I have to disagree. Green/red leaf lettuce is about the cheapest thing in the stores (.79 cent head). Don't buy the prepackaged stuff. That's what I do, all you need is a good salad spinner and the stuff stays fresh for ~ week. (I bought my salad spinner for $2 at the local thrift store) Tomotes are cheap, as are carrots, celery, and cucumbers. Avocodos are often on sale .50 a peice. Strawberries are in season and are dirt cheap right now. Bananas are cheap. As are potatoes and onions. Beans, rice and pasta are some of the cheapest things going. So is flour and sugar. I know all this stuff because this is what I eat. All of these staple put together properly make many great meals. (Not all at one time--- yuck) :0}

And let us not forget that the recent E coli spinach lettuce outbreak involved "organic" spinach.

[danissa]

Originally Posted by Cymy

Yes, my local supermarket is cheaper than the farmers' markets. But, unfortunately, fresh fruits and vegetables are more expensive than canned and frozen.
So please, don't judge if you don't know the whole story. Yes, kids should get fresh fruit, but we adults also need to take care of our bodies so that we can take care of our children. I only posted my earlier message because I was agreeing with a previous poster who commented on how expensive fresh produce is, not to complain about foodstamps.

Cymy..... Please Believe me, I do not judge others! Only asked if there was a farmers market, as we have one in our town where fresh produce can be bought, and it works out cheaper than supermarket stuff..and its local fresh stuff.
I also said that it was in my opinion, thats just it..my opinion, that the kiddos be given the good food before the adults. When my 3 kiddos were wee, we had a very lean time, hubby lost his buisness, we lost our home and survived on so little. No foodstamp help etc, but anything we had went to the wee ones. This is just my experience, and when I look back, it makes me appreciate what I have now.
It may be a country difference here hon, I am in Scotland, not the US, so I dont know how the welfare works there, but just added my thought for the day!