Posted on 01/21/2019 5:33:47 PM PST by mdittmar
WASHINGTON (AP) — Doris Cochran, a disabled mother of two young boys, is stockpiling canned foods these days, filling her shelves with noodle soup, green beans, peaches and pears — anything that can last for months or even years. Her pantry looks as though she’s preparing for a winter storm. But she’s just trying to make sure her family won’t go hungry if her food stamps run out.
For those like Cochran who rely on federal aid programs, the social safety net no longer feels so safe.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
“PRIVATE care of the poor and disabled, jackass.”
And who pays for the people that have nothing?
If by donations, who ensures there are enough private donations for everyone to be fed?
I’m old enough to remember when there were NO food stamps. Just commodities. Peanut butter and concord grape jelly in cans. Bags of split peas and rice, cheese, powdered eggs and milk and real butter that was so good. They were obtained in places that reminded me more of a speak easy than a food pantry. People were glad to get them. They supplemented the diet until better times came home.
“Just let the disabled suffer and die in the street”
That’s how it’s always been since the beginning of time. In fact, it’s still like that in many countries (especially Muslim lands).
When the colonist came to the new world, do you think they pointed out from their ships and said, hey look over there, there’s a government taking care of the the disabled?
News flash, there was no government, it didn’t exist. The colonist didn’t even take care of their own disabled. They had to fend for themselves. Now-a-days, many disabled people are extremely ungrateful, and expect automatic charity from everyone.
I grow food and deliver to pantries. Food from my own organic farm that is better than can be bought with any checkbook.
Unfortunately there are not enough people like us and we could not come close to supporting all who get assistance.
It doesn’t have to be a Federal program. Some way to guarantee the most basic needs to people who cannot work must exist in civilized society. Otherwise you are letting people starve whenever donations run low
Here’s a novel idea: ever heard of a FATHER? What about a FAMILY?
No, you don’t get to have others maintain your lifestyle when you can’t afford to, and if you love your children, you want them to be cared for better than you as an indigent can.
Faking it has nothing to do with it. Forcing others to subsidize the poor, because it make YOU feel better, is!
Gee. All that needs to happen is for Democrats to want the government open more than they want to deny the president a campaign promise kept. Then this poor lady can eat. Ball’s in your court, Nance.
I said “civilized society”.
These are not the days of throwing the disabled down on the rocks to die. That would actually be more merciful than letting them starve in the street
“I grow food and deliver to pantries.”
Bully for you.
“Food from my own organic farm that is better than can be bought with any checkbook.”
People don’t buy your food?
“It doesn’t have to be a Federal program.“
Nor should it be.
L
Where did you get the idea those who have nothing have some financial claim on total strangers?
If by donations, who ensures there are enough private donations for everyone to be fed?
You shouldn't get "assurances" when you're destitute. And "institutionalizing" comfortable penury while conflating it with charity is at best morbid stupidity, and at worst legalized robbery.
Apparently, you believe you and the liberals are the only residents of "civilized society."
My God, you people are even condescending in your presumption!
What is it with you and the lurid intimations? You sound like a fifteen year old trying to be taken seriously.
Before government interference that wasn’t the case.
Why are you promoting socialism as a solution, as if that solution were not worse than your hypothetical problem on this forum?
Are you not capable of comprehending how incredibly dense your hypothetical query sounds on a forum dedicated to the cause of freedom, and full of people who have often been around since before Johnson’s “great society” power grab?
And for a fat woman on food stamps, no less!
Another novel idea: many people have no family or father to turn to since birth. For countless reasons that are no fault of their own.
Many people working themselves to the bone become disabled every day and are absolutely screwed by insurance. The private companies only care about cutting your benefit and maxing profits.
It’s not “maintaining a lifestyle”. Its being able to eat and see your family. The most basic necessities of life.
It doesn’t make me “feel better”. It’s simply uncivilized and disgusting to have no guaranteed support for disabled citizens. It’s like tribes in the stoneage that would kill any disabled people. Coldly efficient but uncivilized and un-Christian.
my parents did this with us growing up many times and we were not on food stamps - it was just called being prepared for any situation. plenty of cans of stew in a can and stuff like that.
If this woman was wise she would have better used her govt food money and already had a surplus and not be trying to stock up now. Most people I know on govt food money have plenty of money to buy way more than needed and end up wasting food because they over buy.
Promote the public charity within your State. Go to your statehouse and make your case to increase their assistance to those under whatever qualifications they want. Not sure about your particular state constitution and its dictates or restrictions, but I agree with previous posters, there is no power transferred by the states to the Federal government to run food delivery programs. The entire section about powers not enumerated here are left to states or individuals, it is really written in very clear language. Not that rule of law actually means anything to anyone these days.
I it’s supposed to be a net, not a cocoon.
Because taking away food from disabled people is genuinely even more lurid than anything I mentioned. Just because there is no blood and it is not public, doesn’t mean they will not suffer even more.
Executing someone is more merciful than taking away their food and letting them starve.
You are so full of crap.
You sound like the babykillers who always cite hypothetical rape and incest victims when 98% of abortions are elective procedures by women who would rather kill their children than be inconvenienced.
And let’s not overlook the fact your pool of “deserving” is getting pretty small...
No family, no father, disabled through no fault of their own (though occupational safety statistics show this is exceedingly rare), then screwed by insurance! How many of THOSE exist in this country?
Sounds like “rape and incest” to me!
And it is “maintaining a lifestyle.” All you have to do is look at the picture of this woman to know she is having no “able to eat” issues.
Here’s a newsflash for you, sport. Civilization is not determined by YOUR opinion of how society handles hardship. What’s really uncivilized and disgusting is your pretentious advocacy for legalized robbery on the backs of the poor.
A pure free market where every transaction is voluntary cannot feed people who have no value in the market.
They will be eliminated by the market and starve to death (if voluntary donations are not enough).
It is slightly greater freedom for the majority but IMO it is uncivilized to make so many innocent disabled PEOPLE suffer for that tiny bit of freedom.
Even though there exist scoundrels who will fake being disabled, it is still wrong to make the real ones suffer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.