LET THEM STARVE

The Compassionate Conservative George W. Bush

Published on June 11, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics

Bush in his 2007 budget has proposed ending a program started in 1968 to distribute Federal Surplus Food to needy seniors. That program CSFP provides boxes of surplus food each month to 420, 000 of the poorest American seniors in 32 states and Washington D.C. The total cost of this program is $107 Million per year and is one of the ways Bush plans to deal with a $600 Billion dollar deficit. Bush claims that this is an overlapping program with food stamps. However when AARP looked at how much many of the people receiving this Surplus Food is receiving from Food Stamps, they found they receive $10 or $20 per month from the Food Stamp Program. How the Hell is this an OVERLAPPING program? The fact is it is supplemental and if an elderly poor person receives the $20 from Food Stamps and the Surplus Food at a value of $55 they receive the GRAND SUM per month of $75. I bet we, as tax payers, spend MORE then $75 per day to feed George W. Bush in the White House!

Bottom line, this Cut is unlikely to survive the GOP in Congress since many are concerned about their own reelection in November 2006. I hope Our Lord Jesus is looking upon his servant George W. Bush to see what Bush is trying to do to the LEAST of his people!

Comments (Page 3)

COL Gene

on Jun 12, 2006

IslandDog

NO I do not mean a Welfare State!!!!!!!! I mean SOME of our people need help. If they either can not provide for their needs (Old and/or disabled) or work but have a job that is needed for which the pay is below a living wage, we should provide a supplement where needed (i.e. the Surplus Food). For those that CAN and DO NOT contribute, I would NOT support help to them at taxpayer expense! Just because we help the people that NEED help does NOT make this a welfare state! That is what I call a Christian!

bakerstreet

on Jun 12, 2006

" mean SOME of our people need help."

Then give them help, instead of paying them to continue suffering.

Island Dog

on Jun 12, 2006

For those that CAN and DO NOT contribute, I would NOT support help to them at taxpayer expense!

Which is a great majority of what you call "poverty" in this country. As Baker pointed out in post #22, our "poor" in this country are not as bad off as you make them to be. If you want to see real poor col I suggest you traveling to france or some other socialist countries who think accomidating every single person through higher taxation works.

NO I do not mean a Welfare State!!!!!!!! I mean SOME of our people need help.

I agree someone who cannot work because of no fault of their own should be helped. I will finally agree with something else you say. "Some" people need help col, not a great majortiy. Although your constant "blame Bush" for this problem is totally ignorant considering this has been a problem for decades. And don't start with your "Bush is making it worse" rhetoric because most of America is doing just fine. Unemployment is at VERY LOW rates.

Just because we help the people that NEED help does NOT make this a welfare state!

You are right again col, but this is not what you usually preach. You seem to make the arguement that someone who makes a low wage at their own choice should somehow get assistance from the government. That is where the welfare state comes in. Althoug you won't answer directly you also seem to run around the idea that the rich in this country must somehow support someone who isn't rich. Income redistribution as it's known elsewhere.

That is what I call a Christian!

For once col had a somewhat decent post and you just had to throw this in. Christian organizations help a lot of people in need col. I think what you are doing is insulting them even though you are probably trying to throw a jab at Bush.

Island Dog

on Jun 12, 2006

Then give them help, instead of paying them to continue suffering.

A simple, but excellent point.

Do you understand col that democrats and liberals do their best to keep people poor? Take a look at the illegal immigration issue which you propose to care so much about. Democrats around the country are proposing federal benefits for illegals, and many illegals already do get federal benefits both legally and illegally. Why are they doing this? For a new voting class that the majority will be on entitlement programs.

The same applies to most minority classes that the democrats use for votes in each election.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 12, 2006

It is NOT the government's JOB to feed the poor and needy, Col. As soon as you realize that, we can begin meaningful work on cutting the federal budget. When the government collects money to redistribute to the poor, it does so in a notoriously inefficient manner that returns 50 cents for every dollar it collects. I am going to borrow a phrase from little whip and ask you: if seniors are starving in America, WHERE ARE THE BODIES? Your proposal of increasing spending and increasing taxes to meet the spending will quickly bankrupt this country as wise businesspeople will quickly discover that it is better to do business elsewhere (at which point you will propose tariffs, which will lead to massive inflation due to higher costs for the end user).

The government needs to do its job and leave charities to do their job.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 12, 2006

Please answer if you believe Jesus would have cut surplus food to the older poor?

Actually, Jesus wasn't a governmental leader, he was a RELIGIOUS leader. I believe his statements made it VERY clear that those are two separate areas.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 12, 2006

For all that agree with the Budget Cut I outlined in this Blog, I guess you must like Scrooge as well.

COL,

Did you actually READ "A Christmas Carol" or do you just get your quotes from the Democratic Underground? If you READ the book, you will notice that the problem with Scrooge was that he depended on the GOVERNMENT programs to help the poor, and figured because he had paid his taxes, he didn't have to help out of his own pocketbook ("are their no poorhouses" "many would rather DIE than go to those poorhouses" "Perhaps they SHOULD, and decrease the surplus population". Sounds like a DEMOCRAT to me!). Next time you use an analogy, make sure your usage fits!

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 12, 2006

37 million poor hidden in the land of plenty

Are you aware that our standards of poverty are VASTLY higher than the world standard? 1/5th of the world's population lives on $1 a day or less...virtually NOBODY in America is that destitute (and if they are, they're STUPID! You can make more than that collecting cans off the street). You also haven't addressed the fact that what is considered "poverty" on a national level is a reasonable wage in some areas.

COL Gene

on Jun 12, 2006

I worked with people that met the poor and very poor categories when I served as President of Cape Coral Housing and Rehabilitation Corp. The definition changes each year and I can assure you the people that we dealt with that level of income had a VERY hard time paying for the ESSENTIALS of life. Many people including the conservatives do not want to admit how many people are in the category or just how difficult it is to live on that income! What people can live on in other countries mean NOTHING when trying to live in this country with the cost of housing, energy and health care.

COL Gene

on Jun 12, 2006

Gideon

He also made it clear just what happened when the Rich man turned a deaf ear to the needs of Lazarus who had nothing!

bakerstreet

on Jun 12, 2006

Charity is like turning the other cheek. As long as it is your cheek, then you are making the sacrifice. When you endanger other people with your forgiveness, or steal THEIR money to give to charity, it is worse than doing nothing at all.

Therefore, if you are concerned with charity, focus on charity. Government isn't in the business of charity, and when you institutionalize it, it is no longer charity, it is simply paying people to be poor with other people's money.

COL Gene

on Jun 12, 2006

Reasonable tax rates are NOT stealing. We have an obligation to pay for what we choose to spend. That is the lesson Bush and the GOP has not learned.

Island Dog

on Jun 12, 2006

Reasonable tax rates are NOT stealing. We have an obligation to pay for what we choose to spend. That is the lesson Bush and the GOP has not learned.

It's stealing when you demand them to be only on one class of Americans.

drmiler

on Jun 13, 2006

Reasonable tax rates are NOT stealing. We have an obligation to pay for what we choose to spend

You seem to be missing a "very" important point......."We" (the american public) did NOT "chose" to spend it. Congress did. Let "them" figure out a way to pay for it. When I get a yes/no vote on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska, "then" you can talk about raising taxes.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 13, 2006

Gideon

He also made it clear just what happened when the Rich man turned a deaf ear to the needs of Lazarus who had nothing!

Quit trying to twist the Bible into saying something it doesn't. Christ preached about PERSONAL responsibility, NOT governmental responsibility. There is a HUGE difference.

I have never denied personal responsibility; in fact, I have issued a standing offer to replace your friend's $10 food stamp money with a personal $10 cash contribution if he will swear off the food stamp money. The only stipulation is he has to prove he is not receiving food stamps anymore. My $10 is legal tender, whereas food stamps can only be used in certain places, for certain items.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!