[wANCO tHE sANE]

I have a really hard time finding this, but does anyone know where I can find EDITORIALS on why food stamps/welfare are bad for the country? I'm not saying they are bad. It's just that i'm just finding a lot of articles that are pro foodstamp/welfare. You never get to the other side of the story. I've been going through the internet and I can't really find any editorials/articles that are con food stamps/welfare. Any help would be appreciated.

[OldManMac]

Just ask Ca$h; he'll tell you why they're bad!

[wANCO tHE sANE]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Just ask Ca$h; he'll tell you why they're bad!

As far as I know, Ca$h isn't employed in a newspaper job.

[TNproud2b]

don't have any articles for you. Just my opinion on the matter.

Consider it an article written by a very intelligent mofo >>>



"Welfare" is a general term used for any entitlement program.

The negative feelings toward welfare usually stem from mismanaged programs. The "safety net" of entitlement programs are being abused by some citizens. The folks administering the programs are to blame for allowing this to happen.

Current programs are targeting children moreso than adults - as it should be. The parents are being required to work if they are able. Hopefully we'll see the end of welfare abuse in our lifetime. The "safety net" isn't a hammock to be lounged-in for years at a time.

It can be argued that most entitlement programs are not producing positive results. The American public spends more and more every year for these programs, yet there are no fewer poor people than there were before the programs were enacted.

There will always be a bottom 10% of wage earners - no matter what you do. As long the baseline for "poverty" exists on a sliding scale (ie, the lowest 10% of wage earners), it stands to reason that "poverty" must always exist...same as "wealthy".

If everyone was guaranteed to make at least $75,000 per year, then a Big Mac would suddenly cost $8.75, a six-pack of beer would set you back $12, and we won't even discuss housing or automobiles.

The lowest 10% of wage earners would be making a minimum of $75,000 yet they wouldn't have any more purchasing power than they do today. There will always be "poor" people. I can't see how this fact can be changed in a capitalist Republic such as the United States. Hard work and achievement should NOT be "punished" in an attempt to "dumb-down" the stellar performers - rather than "smart-up" the underachievers.

Redistributing money doesn't fix anything. Showing people how to be successful and self sufficient is FAR more compassionate than buying them some Wheaties and cheese.

[MikeM33]

I'm not sure what would be "negative" about the program. It keeps people from starving. Imagine if everyone was homeless and starving, there would be much more crime. People would be stealing money or food all the time.

Without such a system in place I couldn't blame people for stealing food. It's just the natural way of things. When we cease to protect our weakest, then we cease to be a society.

MikeM32

[CaseCom]

Get to a library and do a LexisNexis search. If you want to pay, they also offer a pay-as-you-go Web service that you can charge to your credit card: http://www.lexisnexis.com

Start with conservative newspapers: the Wall Street Journal is the first one that leaps to mind. I'm sure they've had many anti-welfare editorials. Not sure how far back you can search though. http://www.opinionjournal.com/

[wANCO tHE sANE]

Originally posted by MikeM33:
I'm not sure what would be "negative" about the program. It keeps people from starving. Imagine if everyone was homeless and starving, there would be much more crime. People would be stealing money or food all the time.

Without such a system in place I couldn't blame people for stealing food. It's just the natural way of things. When we cease to protect our weakest, then we cease to be a society.

MikeM32

Well, I saw this one time at a store. There was this guy and he bought a whole bunch of liquor and a couple packs of cigarettes with his food stamps. So that's one negative that I can think of. Some of these people are actually *not* buying food with their food stamps.. Also, some people eventually rely too much on food stamps that they give up trying to find a job. But yeah I see your point. I acutally think it helps more than it hurts.

TNProud, you brought up a very interesting point. I never really thought of that before.. there will always be poor people. I'm saving your article to my HD. I also agree on a "jump start" program. But if they do change the whole food stamp thing to a jump start program, there are some people on welfare who just can't get a job because of an illness that prevents them to work. Maybe cut a fraction of the food stamp funds and use it on a jump star program or something like that. Reminds me of that one saying "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for life." or something like that.

Casecom, I'll go down to the library and the local JC library to see if they have lexisnexis.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by wANCO tHE sANE:
Casecom, I'll go down to the library and the local JC library to see if they have lexisnexis.

While you are in the library, I would talk to the research librarian and browse the political science and sociology shelves. I have a feeling you are more likely to find what you want in books than in editorials. Look for things on wefare reform or "workfare."

If you want something prepackaged, search backissues of the National Review. I bet they have written on your subject pretty frequently.

Also, see if Cato has what you want. It's a very influential libertarian think tank and it's probably ground zero for intelligent scepticism of welfare.

[derien]

TNproud2b, I think you're making an honest analysis, but I hope you would consider a few things:

I wouldn't dismiss redistribution out of hand, and I'm not certain you would either. "Showing people how to be successful and self sufficient," would be a form of redistribution. The resources (time, knowledge, etc.) to do that have to come from somewhere, whether from public or private initiative. A hand up is a hand up, whether in words, cash, or food.

Also, be careful not to oversimplify the relationship between hard work and "success." They don't always equate. Moreover, our society is set up in such a way that people with certain aptitudes are much more likely to turn effort into financial gain. That an individual with a knack for tossing a ball through a hoop from fifteen feet will frequently make orders of magnitude more than a teacher, for instance, suggests something odd about our priorities (although economically it's easy to see how it happens, and I wouldn't necessarily begrudge athletes their fortunes). If you're successful, be happy that you live in a society that appreciates your skills.

I think I should point out that poverty, as properly used, is not a relative term (i.e., not on a "sliding scale"). It refers to the level of wealth/income under which maintenance of a healthy lifestyle is impossible. Very difficult to calculate, for obvious reasons. You can be poor without living in poverty. There is absolutely no reason why anyone in the United States should live under the poverty line. I think what you meant was that there will always be poor in a capitalistic society--and indeed, you do phrase it that way subsequently. I wouldn't argue too much against that.

To get a somewhat abstract, and just rant a little for no reason in particular, let me point out that society is a largely arbitrary construction, and there's a lot of latitude in decisions of how to ensure (or not) the well-being of its members. To say that people should fend for themselves is perhaps a legitimate philosophy (though not entirely justified by my own morality). To blame people for their suffering, however, is not always appropriate whether you intend to help them or not. Here I would turn to the original question of food stamps. You can't really say whether or not they're bad for the country without defining a context or considering the goals of society. And you're never going to get complete agreement on those goals, no matter how passionately or long you argue. Nevertheless, reasonable people, I think, will see the validity in the visions of other reasonable people. Unfortunately, I believe hotheads far outnumber reasonable people, and effectively drown out intelligent dialogue.

wANCO, do look at the Cato Institute's materials. On the other side, you might want to check the Brookings Institution or the Urban Institute. I think they're pretty fair. I would be careful about putting too much stock in conservative publications like the National Review or liberal ones like the New Republic, as these have an agenda and are willing to omit or obscure counterpoints to their arguments.

While you're checking out Lexis-Nexis, you might also want to look into ProQuest. They have full-text articles from thousands of newspapers, magazines, and journals going back at least a couple decades.

Well, good luck, and be reasonable.