• John Cook

    John Cook Profile

  • Stephanie Ettinger de Cuba

    Stephanie Ettinger de Cuba Profile

  • Justin Pasquariello

    Justin Pasquariello Profile

  • Deborah A. Frank

    Deborah A. Frank Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English.

There are 10 comments on POV: Starving Out Food Stamps

  1. “It would require SNAP recipients between the ages of 18 and 50 without minor children to get a job or enroll in a job-training program…”

    So, we should create a system of perpetual government-dependent welfare? No reason at all to try and reduce SNAP costs by encouraging self-sufficiency I guess.

    This article makes a lot of bold unsupported assertions throughout. Even if we are to accept the author’s premise that “food security” is this black and white issue without nuance, the contradictions beat you over the head.

    At one point the author claims it is important to remember some people are working and receiving SNAP with family members that are too old to work. Later, he goes on to dismiss getting adults 18-50 without minor children into the workforce as Draconian.

    I’m sorry, but this article was as poorly executed as the current state of SNAP. Would be nice to see at least the slightest recognition of nuance here.

    1. I can understand that some people have no compassion for the poor affected, most of whom fall into the categories of children, elderly, disabled, mentally retarded and emotionally unstable.

      I can’t understand why they refuse to accept an economically efficient approach to keeping them from dying on their doorsteps and stealing their peoperty to survive.

      I also can’t understand why sociopaths lacking basic human compassion are allowed to participate in government.

      I suspect that this poster probably feels no shame in encouraging the government to stop feeding the poor. He should.

    2. I don’t think the authors of this piece are advocating against self-sufficiency. In fact, I think that most people receiving SNAP hope to achieve economic independence, but need a little assistance along the way.

      In fact, in 1996 conservative lawmakers offered an amendment to the welfare bill limiting food stamps for unemployed 18-50 years who were out of work. Failing to comply with the workfare or job training regulations within 3 months would result in being cut off of SNAP. Many states, however, cannot run large enough workfare or training programs to accommodate this requirement. Therefore, governors were allowed to seek waivers for areas where unemployment was particularly high and jobs were not available so that people would not be cut off of food stamps. Both conservative and liberal governors have requested these waivers over the years, especially at times of high unemployment. The bill that passed the House removes the provision that enables governors to apply for such waivers. This means that no matter how bad the job market is in a particular locale, people will be cut off of SNAP for failing to find a job.

      This is Draconian and just another attack against our nation’s hungry and poor.

  2. Why don’t we really take care of AMERICANS, and assure that these benefits go only to those who are in the United States legally? There would be no need to reduce or eliminate the benefits of this program if costs were contained. The fact is that illegal immigrants return to their homelands when they are not able to take advantage of US government subsidies; they have families there and have been sending home US dollars as long as they have been here.

    This is not cruel or unreasonable; it is what each of the countries from which our illegals come do with respect to those illegally in their countries. If we want to feed our hungry children, stop feeding those who have not entered our country legally.

  3. Old fashion food pantries worked just fine for years but suddenly these are no longer suitable for our poor. The EBT cards often end up getting sold for drug money by the parents of these poor children. Let’s be honest, this program is easily abused and is not working as intended and the fraud is wasting tax payer money. If you truly support this program then you must also support fixing it so the rampant fraud is eliminated.

  4. Kitty and missy, you are very wise. The worst thing though is that encouraging entitlements for people who have children is also fueling child neglect and abuse. I don’t buy all of the sappy hard time stories. If these people really had “family values” they would not have children in bad circumstances. Birth control was invented a long time ago and sperm just doesn’t fall out of the sky and run up your pant leg

  5. My state has specific food that can and can not be purchased with the EBT food card. For example, you van purchase boxed,prepackaged intant oatmeal, you can not purchase whole oats. The state prefers that families eat sugary, chemical added, processes food over the healthier, less expensive option. Go figure!

  6. Wow. Such compassionate people. Who would Jesus starve?

    I realize that’s harsh, and I get that folks think it will create dependence: I am all for personal accountability> However, the fact is given the minimum wage, the cost of child care and the fact that the cost of living outpaces annual wage increases…. something’s gotta give. Either pay people more, work out something with childcare, decrease housing costs, improve transportation infrastructure. The system is broken. Meanwhile, people have to eat.

    What’s funny is usually people against these programs are also against sex education in schools and are pro-life. They don’t care about the kids once they are born.

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *