Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Proposed cuts in SNAP program have some concerned

September 24, 2013

MARSHALL — Western Community Action anticipates increasing service at the food shelf as a result of projected food stamp program cuts but remains confident of their ability to serve their clients....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(36)

rangeral

Sep-24-13 9:14 AM

The so-called cuts equal about 4% a year in a program that has more than doubled under Obama's watch. Does anyone seriously believe there is not that amount spent on waste and fraud? The government is even paying people to go out and sign up folks.

3 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rona45

Sep-24-13 9:33 AM

Fraud and waste -the two main features of the present administration.

2 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SELyonCo

Sep-24-13 10:04 AM

It's ironic that the party that claims to be concerned about families is the one taking food out of the mouths of children.

Yes, there is undoubtedly fraud and waste, but does that justify kicking millions who legitimately need assistance off the program? No.

Yes, Al, use of the program has expanded, thanks to the recession which was the creation of your conservative friends and their failed fiscal policies and unregulated greed. Many people are underemployed now or only making minimum wage. Until we fix those things SNAP will continue to be needed.

One solution is single payer health care. Companies are using the ACA as a scapegoat to justify cutting part-time benefits and reducing employees' hours. A national health system would remove that onus from private employers and cost us far less in taxes than we pay in premiums now.

The second thing we can do is pass a minimum wage that is actually a living wage. Sadly neither of these things will happen because of greed.

20 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OIIOHH

Sep-24-13 10:28 AM

The title of this news article should be “Local Charities Prove to be Far More Effective than SNAP”.

SNAP is all about making people dependent upon the government.

1 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrunchyCon

Sep-24-13 12:06 PM

>>>"It's ironic that the party that claims to be concerned about families is the one taking food out of the mouths of children."

SELyonCo, please, stop it. I've engaged civilly with you before on this forum & you're better than that.

There is plenty that one can criticize about Republican policies (I actually *agree* with you that we shouldn't cut this program quite this drastically) but this BS about Republicans not caring about kids needs to stop. Is there anyone who is actually sitting there Monty Burns-style, saying, "Gee, I so enjoy watching the little children's faces when they beg for their food!" No. The claim that is ACTUALLY being made is "This program is wasteful. There is a better way of helping these people." That claim may be right; it may be wrong. But even if its wrong it just means they're wrong, not evil.

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrunchyCon

Sep-24-13 12:06 PM

Ok, now I'll train my sights on my fellow conservatives. The emphasis on reducing wasteful spending is good. So is the honest desire to help people become self-sufficient . So far, so good.

But what about the real actual effects on real actual people of cutting the safety net out from under them? How will we mitigate that? This article is projecting an additional strain on local charities as a result of the cuts. It seems, due to local generosity, that the situation here is optimistic. But what about other places where charities may not be able to keep up with the extra demand?

Part of the reason liberals don't trust conservative fiscal policy is because it feels to them like legitimate concerns about people falling thru the cracks aren't addressed head on. Let's address them, & leave out the BS about how much liberals love their wasteful spending. Like I said below, if they're wrong, it just means they're wrong, not evil.

17 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrunchyCon

Sep-24-13 12:08 PM

And now that I've probably managed to offend everyone reading this forum, I'm going to go crawl back under my rock from whence I came...

11 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OIIOHH

Sep-24-13 1:27 PM

According to President Owe’Bummer’s speech delivered on Sept. 16th: “So if you add it all up, over the last three-and-a-half years, our businesses have added 7.5 million new jobs. The unemployment rate has come down. Our housing market is healing. Our financial system is safer. We sell more goods made in America to the rest of the world than ever before. We generate more renewable energy than ever before. We produce more natural gas than anybody. Health care costs are growing at the slowest rate in 50 years.”

In other words, Owe'Bummer has fixed the country’s economic ills. Thus, there is no longer any need for the government to feed multi-millions of hungry Americans.

1 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Outsider

Sep-24-13 1:45 PM

The problem with these dependency programs is just that.. To many people become dependent on them. It goes from being helped out (which some DO need) to becoming a lifestyle! Then that lifestyle of dependency is passed on to the next generation! Soon people will not know how to be independent! And that is a frightening thought!

2 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Sep-24-13 4:26 PM

Lets not be too hasty Crunchy. As usual, you make some very good points though your criticism of SEL is a bit harsh. SEL has a point. While Republicans tout their desire to uphold Christian values, they plan cuts that provide a basic human need to those living in poverty - food. It’s not like these cuts will force some to decide whether to buy food or join the Country Club. We are talking about choosing food over paying for childcare, transportation, medical care or clothing. Even farmers agree there are millions, if not billions of dollars of waste in the Farm Bill yet that wasteful spending continues while SNAP is singled out by Republicans for cuts. Poorly designed economic policies from both parties have created an ever increasing gap between the rich and poor. The majority of poor don’t want to live in poverty - they don’t want to be dependent on our government. (cont)

16 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Sep-24-13 4:30 PM

Those in poverty have the same dreams as the wealthy, but often lack the resources which enable them to achieve their goals. There are countless stores of rags to riches often BECAUSE of our ability to provide assistance, not in spite of it. Both sides agree there must be accountability but simply cutting billions of dollars from public assistance programs does nothing to solve the real issue, assuming the desire of Republicans is to reduce the NEED for welfare. I’m not saying that Republicans don’t care about kids or the poor but you must admit, they don’t seem to be doing much to help either. Actually, neither side seems to have the desire to provide the types of programs that enable those living in poverty acquire a higher standard of living by providing for themselves. Don’t stay under that rock too long Crunchy – you’re one of the few voices of reason (even if you often disagree with my opinion, lol).

17 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Sep-24-13 4:49 PM

Palan described volunteering and donations in the area as "over-the-top."

That is a testament to the compassion and respect for humanity that is often displayed by residents of this area and especially those in our community. It's what makes this area a great place to live.

16 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

Sep-24-13 6:49 PM

SEL and hartman - where are the jobs that Obama promised? Where is his sound economic plan?

Obama is inept at managing, has no economic sense and has brought the standards in government management to new lows. Hundreds of millions on conferences, waste that seems to have no end, no fraud convictions despite billions being syphoned off - where is the Obama plan to fix ANY of these shortfalls?

There are many more Democratic millionaires in Congress than GOP - and they belong to the most expensive country clubs in this country. What people are they watching out for?

Under Obama, more people owe back taxes in Congress, the Executive Branch and federal employees than at any point in history. Plenty of time to play games with conservative non-profits but no time to collect taxes due.

This year will mark the largest amount for federal income tax ever collected - and that is still short of what the Dems want to spend - by $650 billion.

2 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

Sep-24-13 6:52 PM

hartman - please list your donations last year - to whom and how much. Or are you cheap like Biden?

1 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SELyonCo

Sep-24-13 6:58 PM

Hartman covered a lot of what I was going to say. I don't mind criticism, Crunchy, but to paraphrase Hartman, live by the sword, die by the sword. If the GOP wants to tout itself as the family values party then they have to accept the fallout when they do something that is decidedly not in the best interest of families. I'm sure you're right about them not doing a Monty Burns "excellent" after the vote (well, most of them), but if it isn't willful malfeasance then it is certainly ignorant malfeasance.

OIIOHH, I don't recall the POTUS saying everything was fixed. He pointed out that we're recovering, but we're not anywhere close to the pre-Bush economy. The 7.5 million jobs add aren't the same as the jobs that were lost. On the whole the jobs that are being offered now are for lower pay, fewer benefits, and fewer hours (unless your salaried, in which case it's longer hours).

16 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Sep-25-13 9:25 AM

rangeral, you have posted your comments to the wrong article again. Nothing in your last post has anything to do with the Farm Bill or the likelihood SNAP funding will be cut or even reality, for that matter.

15 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

Sep-25-13 9:38 AM

All right hartman, I'll play seeing as you never want to respond to basic questions that you bring up in your posts. Obviously you agree with my prior post about how inept the Obama regime is.

Still waiting on your environmental actions. Can only conclude you don't have any.

1 Agrees | 15 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrunchyCon

Sep-25-13 11:38 AM

Thanks for the compliment, Hartman! & apologies to SEL if I came across a bit strong. (I've enjoyed sparring with both of you in the past) But the fact is, though I haven't checked this forum as much lately, it seems like the "discussion" these days tends mostly to be conservatives harping on perceived liberal ineptitude ("Owe’bummer"? WTF?) and liberals responding with condescension. Neither, I think, is justified, though I'm honestly not sure which bothers me more.

Unfortunately, though, you both sort of reinforced the original point I was making, which is that your conclusions are 100% dependent upon the assumptions/premises you start with (Deductive Logic 101), and it seems to me you are overly confident about the strength of those premises. In any event, reasonable people might disagree about them so it doesn't make sense to assert them as self-evident. Really, I'm just looking for a little more humility in the argumentation.

11 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrunchyCon

Sep-25-13 11:39 AM

Let me parse one example from hartman: "but you must admit, [Republicans] don’t seem to be doing much to help either...neither side [has] the desire to provide programs...". That right there - that equivocation between "help" and "programs" & the perception that the right programs are not being supported - reveals a basic train of logic. To put it in traditional "modus tollens" form, the argument seems to be: 1)to help poor families, Govt program X is necessary 2)Govt program X isn't being supported Conclusion: Therefore, poor families aren't being helped.

The conclusion clearly follows from the premises. But is it true? Only if both 1&2 are. A conservative could very easily reply, "they ARE being helped - just in a better way" (see OIOOHH's 10:28 comment). Who's right? With #1, you are making a big assumption that "family values" and "conservative fiscal policy" are necessarily opposed. What if they

12 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrunchyCon

Sep-25-13 11:43 AM

Many do reject premise #1. Why? Well, its certainly possible they've been sniffing too much Fox News. But maybe - just maybe - they've studied Austrian economic theory and actually find the arguments persuasive. One can be well-educated & lambast "failed liberal economic policies" every bit as strongly as SEL does conservative ones. Is that "ignorance"? Or - more likely - is that simply a reflection of the fact that economic theory is difficult to prove, being, as it is, unable to be studied in a lab. (academic "consensus" is nonexistent - put an Austrian and Keynesian in the same room & watch the sparks fly!). Nothing you've said here would convince ANYONE affiliated with either the Austrian or Chicago schools of thought.

I'm not an economist, but I'm always amazed at the dogmatic certainty liberals and conservatives (most whom aren't economists either) attach to their pet theory, as if it's completely immune to critique. Is it really j

14 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrunchyCon

Sep-25-13 11:43 AM

...justified?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrunchyCon

Sep-25-13 11:50 AM

my 11:39 post is missing a word at the end too: "aren't?"

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Sep-25-13 3:05 PM

It is a fact Crunchy, there is little direct evidence that ascertains what economic benefits are derived from providing financial assistance to those in need. In society’s attempts to provide a solution, have we created a cycle of dependence? There is a financial (and social) cost associated with doing nothing as well. It’s easy to gauge the immediate benefits of basic human needs such as food and shelter but what benefit does financial assistance offer in the ability of the poor to advance their station in life. IMO, I would prefer public funds be used to create programs providing additional education, job skills and entry level jobs. Many individuals, not just the poor, have inadequate budgeting skills. While we may not all agree on the specific methods or levels of assistance, there must be at least a minimum level of aid that allows those in need to retain their dignity. (cont)

14 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Sep-25-13 3:05 PM

You requested “a little more humility in the argumentation.” I would ask for more that same humility from our policy makers as we address the growing problem of those in need.

14 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Sep-25-13 5:39 PM

"...sounds like you have never read or watched the fable of the ant and grasshopper."

Let me guess rangeral, you are the self-righteous ant!

What better way to address the issue of lowering health care costs and making it available to those with pre-existing conditions than a fable.

14 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 36 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web