Food Stamps Vs Public Mess Halls

[Dekan]

Hopefully your 99 year-old father-in-law doesn't need to rely on food stamps, as you're looking after him?

[EdEarl]

I am also disabled, but worked long enough to provide for myself, and my wife still works.

[CharonY]

There weren't any food stamps in 19th century America. Everyone had to fend for themselves, without government handouts. No safety net. That's how the strong USA was created.

 

Now the USA is being weakened by food stamps, which reward incompetence. And that will lead to the end of your country.

 

Isn't that Darwinian reality?

 

No, that is just being silly (social Darwinism has little to do with Darwin, or reality for that matter). Living conditions for workers in the 19th century were horrid. The US got strong because they overcame (mostly) these issues rather because of them. Unless you believe that in direct comparison living in the 19th century would be better than living today in the US (hint: it is not).

The US had historically a huge advantage over other countries when it came to curbing starvation (to a large extent due to the availability of fertile land relative to population size). In addition there were historically large amounts of labor shortages which made unemployment not too much an issue (though it did include indentured servitude).

 

Incidentally, this changed somewhat throughout the mentioned 19th century, during which poor houses (for example) were on the rise. Poverty became a larger issue that was initially curbed by private activities including workers banding to help each others and rich people funding charities (partially fueled by the ideal of Nobless oblige, possibly). Still, life expectancy dropped significantly during the later half of the 19th century. This only changed during the 20th century, when improvement in economic and agricultural conditions (among others) helped to lessen the burden of poverty.

 

To summarize, there were safety nets and severe need of them. They were not run by the government but almost entirely reliant on private funding (though I believe tax incentives were already in place) and they were ineffective in many places (though without them the impact on life expectancy would have been even worse).

 

If this kind of dismal situations are correlated with strong nations, most countries (including most of Europe) should be much stronger than the US, as they faced much harsher issues when it came to starvation and economic issues...

[Airbrush]

Why do some people in America need "food stamps". Surely they could get a job, earn some money, and buy their own food

 

I mean, can anyone in 21st century America really be hungry, except through personal incompetence?

From my limited research I find that although England does not have "food stamps" they have public assistance to unemployed and poor people. Here is what I found by googling:

 

"...You cannot compare the social systems in Europe (often named as socialist countries by U.S. Republicans) to the capitalistic democracy as applied in the United States.

 

"A working person in England (and in most of Europe) is required by law to pay contributions to mandatory governmental insurance systems. They do not have a choice whether to partitipate or not but they all are entitled to governmental assistance once they are getting sick (heath insurance or free health care), or unemployed (unemployment insurance), or old (old age pension insurance).

 

"A person being unemployed in England would be entitled to a jobseeker-allowance which will be transferred to the bank account on weekly basis. S/he would not need to get any food stamps or nowadays special ATM cards which would show that s/he is poor and does not have work. The "Socialist Countries" in Europe prefer to respect the dignity of human beings instead of pointing that "they have not made it" like the U.S. government obviously does."

Edited January 2, 2014 by Airbrush

[iNow]

Dekan's claim is fallacious on so many levels that it's almost not even worth responding to.

 

First, he suggests things were just dandy in the 19th century. That's false. Second, he suggests there was no government assistance and "everyone had to fend for themselves." That is also false. Third, he suggests the reason the US became strong is because it let it's poor people starve and die. That's remedially false. Fourth, he suggests the US is weakened by food stamps, which is rebutted by essentially every single economic study ever done. Fifth, he suggests food stamps reward incompetence, which completely misses the point that many children and elderly live in poverty. Sixth, he suggests that providing struggling families a way to avoid prostituting themselves and focusing entirely on finding dinner instead of finding jobs "will lead to the end of the" USA. Seventh, he suggests that this is somehow Darwinian, which entirely misses the point of group dynamics and how humans are so successful specifically because we've helped one another and engaged in cooperation of various sorts.

 

I could go on, but the point is that his worldview and ideology is so completely removed from reality that there's little basis on which to even have a productive dialog.

[Lightmeow]

I feel like the only way that this world will survive is if the humans evolved again. Just as we have evolved not to go raid the village next door to get more food, I feel like we are going to have to do this. I know this sounds very Utopian, but I see no other way, as the population is growing, and the earth isn't getting any bigger:

• People do what they love to do. What I mean by this, is the people who love to make and grow food, make and grow food. This eliminates the social class stupidness all together. What I mean, is the farmers, are usually regarded as lower, and gets a lower pay. If it was like this, just continue on.
• Then, you have doctors be a doctor because they love to be a doctor, not because of the money. My point is here, we could have free health care. It would be offered as a service, as opposed to a crazy money making scheme. Then we would also eliminate the stupid health care and all the crocked business there.
• Then you have the scientists that love science.
• Then there would be the builders that love to build ect.

If you did this, then you would eliminate the need for money, and everyone would have what they wanted, and we should be a productive society. I think if anyone was not stupid, and in for it for the money, then a lot would get done. People would help to help. But this isn't human nature as of yet.

 

And if we did this, then no one would be hungry!!!

 

But this isn't going to work, because you have the criminals, the hoarders, and the generally evil people.

 

Good Luck To Us All

Edited January 4, 2014 by Lightmeow

[Airbrush]

Lightmeow, you have a number of interesting comments above.

 

Evolution takes a long time, which we don't have. We need to change by getting smarter. Maybe technology is the only thing that can speed up getting smarter.

 

Getting smarter includes making people more productive. The way to do that is to match people with the right kind of education, and later match them again with the right kind of job. If more people loved their work, the world would be a better place.

 

A good way to put unemployed people to work, in the short term, is in food production and preparation.

 

Can we really "do away with money"? Money is a powerful incentive for talented people to make an effort.

[Arete]

 

I mean, can anyone in 21st century America really be hungry, except through personal incompetence?

 

How about Britain?

 

"In December 2012 it was estimated that since the start of the year, over 200,000 Britons will have needed provisions from food banks" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_Kingdom

[iNow]

Given today is the 50th anniversary of his launch of the "war on poverty" in the United States, I want to share this quote from President Johnson's 1964 State of the Union address to the nation:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/lbj-union64/

Poverty is a national problem, requiring improved national organization and support. But this attack, to be effective, must also be organized at the State and the local level and must be supported and directed by State and local efforts.

 

For the war against poverty will not be won here in Washington. It must be won in the field, in every private home, in every public office, from the courthouse to the White House.

 

The program I shall propose will emphasize this cooperative approach to help that one-fifth of all American families with incomes too small to even meet their basic needs.

 

Our chief weapons in a more pinpointed attack will be better schools, and better health, and better homes, and better training, and better job opportunities to help more Americans, especially young Americans, escape from squalor and misery and unemployment rolls where other citizens help to carry them.

 

Very often a lack of jobs and money is not the cause of poverty, but the symptom. The cause may lie deeper -- in our failure to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities, in a lack of education and training, in a lack of medical care and housing, in a lack of decent communities in which to live and bring up their children.

[AbeMichelson]

As someone who actually does volunteer work with the needy, I find some of these post are barbaric. I am fairly libertain (not tea party), and I still support food stamps.

A few distinctions are missing:

1) Food stamps/food banks are not just for the unemployed. Many working families rely on them. Look at it this way, between the 50s and now we have gone from a single family income nation to a double income nation. As such costs rose to match income levels of the families. So someone with a single income has a much harder time surviving than one with two. I make pretty good money, but my wife doesn't work. For us this means the equivalent of two lower-middle incomes.

2) Food stamps/banks act as a lifeline when someone finds themselves temporarily unemployed.

3) Here's a 'Social Darwin' argument for you: If you had the choice between starvation and committing a crime, which would you choose? Most people would commit the crime (theft, murder, etc.). Every time you add a criminal to society, you increase your chance of being a victim. [A similar libertarian argument for better education: I want my cashier to be able to do simple math]. Now I'm not saying everyone would become criminals or do, but you would decrease the probability. This falls under the heading of a rising tide lifts all ships.

4) The junk food vs healthy food debate misses a key point: junk food stays on the shelf longer. To maximize resources, you must eliminate waste. Food spoilage is a source of waste. If you did not have a lot of money, you would go for the wonderbread that can outlast us over organic free range wheat bread that will last a week. Lack of empathy often leads to lack of knowledge. The people who want to get fresh fruits to the inner city would be better suited in creating products that use preservatives that are more healthy. Liberals tend to feel like they "know better", without thinking of the actual root cause, and come up with an imperfect solution. I feel like their heart is in the right place here, but their mind is not.

 

All of that being said, I think the OP has a really interesting idea. It could work in the inner city, as a sort of subsidized fast food. You would need to mix capitalism and government perfectly. [This is where these thing usually fail]. I'm not sure I would want either of them handle this, to be honest. Maybe I'm cynical. Plus, the people with jobs on food stamps would have no time to do it. Growing food in the city is not easy, but people are working on it. I would like to see a true cost analysis before I would say if it was a good idea or not. Non-profits and Religious organizations do a much better job than government or businesses. If you really want to do it, I'd suggest starting a non profit (contact United Way, they would be able to help) and try it. In closing, if you don't want the government supporting the needy, then you have to start doing it yourself.

@ iNOW...ever notice how "War on [fill in the blank]" never seems to work out?

@ Lightmeow...where would we get our janitors? [Office Space reference deleted]... also my own personal quote: "Mankind's final government will be anarchy: either we will all learn to work together without the need for compulsion, or there will only be one man left."

Also everyone was not left to fend for themselves. An example is Knights of Columbus, founded in the 19th century to help poor Irish families.

[Airbrush]

Thanks for your input Abe.

 

More space should be set aside for community gardens. Unemployed people could be put to work on these gardens either cultivating crops or preparing free meals for local needy. Gardens can spring up anywhere, on tops of buildings in the city, in abandoned buildings converted to greenhouses, and in every residential community, within a 15 minute walk for all citizens. Everyone should be able to get free healthy meals, within a 15 minute brisk walk, because that will save on medical and pharmaceutical expenses in the future, which we all have to pay for through our taxes.

[Arete]

Unemployed people could be put to work....

 

I think here's your problem.

 

One of the major psychological ramifications of poverty that significantly makes poor people feel like they are not part of society at large and prevents them from integrating into it results from the dehumanization which occurs through the loss of basic life choices - like where to live, what career to choose, what clothes to wear, how to raise your kids, and what to eat, etc.

 

Food stamps, for better or worse, give poorer people a choice in what they eat. Taking away that choice, along with the choice as to what people do from 9-5 if you mandate that they work on community farms, would be met with significant resistance and act to further marginalize the poor from the rest of society. While I appreciate the intention of the food hall model, I personally can't see any top down model working - anything where well-off taxpaying folk are making life decisions for poorer folk is unlikely to be met favorably.

 

One of the main reasons that people in low socioeconomic situations make seemingly poor life decisions - is that having your energy is devoted to satisfying your immediate needs has a scientifically verifiable (and I'd implore anyone interested in the issue to read the cited article) impact on your ability to make decisions. Why eat healthy, stop drinking or quit smoking if you're unsure where you (and potentially your family) will sleep next week? What I would suggest the research is showing us is that if you want a poor person to make better lifestyle choices about what they eat, etc. you need to a) stabilize their living situation such that they can engage in long-term decision making; and b) educate them sufficiently so that they can make informed decisions.

 

So, I would suggest that increasing the level of immediate assistance and education offered to the destitute (who aren't destitute as a symptom of another ailment, like mental health, or addiction, etc) is most likely to elevate them out of poverty - which I would assume is the ultimate aim of any aid given to the poor. Ironically enough, genuinely empowering people always seems like the best way to empower them, it would seem at least IMHO.

 

As a tangent, this has always made the conservative "cut the aid to the moochers" point of view odd to me. If you view the poor purely in terms of liability/asset, if you invest heavily in the short term (i.e. lots of assistance/education to the poor), you can potentially turn them into an asset (i.e. a taxpayer). Where as if you invest the minimum possible, you don't offer them the ability to elevate out of poverty, and they remain a liability indefinitely.

[iNow]

It seems the US congress is moving in the opposite direction to the one advocated in this thread (not as fiercely as house republicans wanted, but still significant all in all).

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/28/the-950-billion-farm-bill-in-one-chart/

Under existing law, the United States was already on pace to spend $972.9 billion on these programs over the next decade. So the bill before Congress would technically cut spending, relative to that baseline, by $23 billion.

 

How does it do that? Well, food stamps are cut by $8 billion (relative to current law). Farm subsidy and commodity programs are cut by $19 billion. Conservation programs get cut by $6 billion. And crop insurance is increased by about $10 billion.

<snip>

Food stamps and nutrition,$756 billion over 10 years ($8 billion less than existing law). This is by far the biggest part of farm policy, with the bulk taken up by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which helps low-income families pay for food.

 

House Republicans and Senate Democrats have long wrangled over how to modify this program. The Senate wanted to slightly tweak some of the rules governing eligibility and cut just $4 billion from existing law. The House wanted to put in place much stronger restrictions on who could get food stamps and cut $40 billion from current law.

 

The Senate mostly won this fight. The compromise bill will cut $8 billion over 10 years.