U.S. & World

Anxiety as stimulus hike in food stamps set to end


Return To Article
  • bluebullet94 ,
    Oct. 11, 2013 1:36 p.m.

    I feed my family of 6 every month for about $500 and I figure that if we really budgeted that we could even survive on about $300/month so I don't know why these families of 4 or 5 need $600/month of free food? I don't know why the Govt doesn't handle welfare the same way as the LDS church. Set up Govt storehouses in metropolitan areas so that those on welfare assistance can go and get what they need. That way it's controlled and only approved items are available. And make people re-qualify for the program every 3 months with proof of job applications and other requirements showing that they are working themselves off the program. The Govt could learn a lesson or two from the church.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Oct. 10, 2013 10:30 p.m.

    Mrs H. The ads are dependent on your browsing and posting history.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Oct. 10, 2013 9:53 p.m.

    Some questions:

    * How many people are fed per food stamp?
    * Why do people have children when they can't afford to feed them?
    * Why does a person, working, being responsible, and feeding their own family,-made to pay for someone else?
    * How can a country, who spends billions per year for education,-have a high amount of people on welfare, and food stamps?

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 1:00 p.m.


    It's not judgmental to expect people to take care of themselves. It's not judgmental to not support people who have made bad decisions(lack of sufficient education, financial planning, family planning) taking the money I earn.

  • djc Stansbury Park, Ut
    Oct. 10, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    I guess as usual my point was missed. The WalMart reference was to show that as the Bible says in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the hatred toward the poor that is often verbalized in these comments is not right and definitely not Christian. Jesus Christ's teachings are full of references to serving both God and Money.

    To the person who knows how to cook and can and does get by on less then the government offers, I can only say one thing. Try living in the inner city in most cities and try to even find good wholesome food in those places.

    Again I am more talking toward the hatred of the poor then anything else. Don't be jealous and don't vilify, someday you might be down on your luck.

    I have a Masters Degree and can't get one of the proverbial good jobs that RedShirtMIT seems to think are laying around for the taking. But alas I am also over 60. I think that explains the reason for the two part time jobs.

    I just hope some of you judgmental people learn the consequences of setting yourself up as judge of others.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Oct. 10, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    To "djc" what about the people who don't want to look for a better job, gain skills, or do something so that they can earn more money. Should we just blindly give them everything they need so that they don't ever feel hunger?

    If you don't like the fact that Walmart pays low wages, then don't work there. States like North Dakota show us that if nobody wants to work for minimum wage, Walmart will increase their wages until they can attract employees.

  • Mom of 8 Hyrum, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    There was a period of 6 months where our family of 10 was on food stamps. Both my husband and I had lost our jobs and were working temporarily at $8/hour (we're college graduates with many years of experience).

    Until better work came along, we applied for SNAP.
    I was embarrassed, humiliated, then stunned; the government gave us over $900/month.

    I told the worker I never spent more than $750/month on food, and that INCLUDED diapers, detergent, etc. I didn't NEED that much in benefits. I cook from scratch, we rarely buy junk food, and we're careful with portion controls.

    His response? "This is what the government says you need. Just use it all."

    I didn't, because I felt guilty over-buying when I never would if it were my money alone. But after a few months I started to think, "Hey, why not?"

    Fortunately by then my husband had a new job and we earned enough to take care of ourselves.

    But it was becoming easy to take what was given, with no strings attached. It eventually becomes an unfortunate way of life.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    $668 a month for a family of 4???

    I am not poor or on food stamps but my family of 6 does not spend that much on food each month.

  • MrsH Altamont, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 10:50 a.m.

    Define irony: Alongside the comments section of this article is a advertisement for Neiman Marcus. They are selling multi-thousand dollar briefcases.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    Punishment of the innocent - escape and multiple rewards for the guilty (Wall Street banks, insurance companies et al). What a system!

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 10:31 a.m.


    The Waltons don't owe you, or anyone else a job. They aren't responsible to put on your table, or anyone else's. If their employees are on food stamps, that's not the Waltons fault. It is each person's responsibility to gain enough skills and expertise in something to be able to provide for their families. If one's skills and expertise dont' merit a high paying job, it's not the Waltons job to give them a high salary, or even a medium salary. Low skills merit low pay.

    The Waltons aren't taking taxpayer money. In fact, they're paying hundreds of millions in taxes a year. The world would be a better place if everyone took responsibility for themselves, but that's not the liberal way.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    One bishop told me (twice) that the American church members receive additional money in fast offerings from poor nations, or in other words they do not even provide enough for their own poor, and need to be subsidized BY the poor.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Oct. 10, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    Statistics show that if you do three things there is an 80% probability that you will never live in poverty.

    1. Graduate from high school.
    2. Wait until you are 20 years old to get married.
    3. Wait until you are married to make a baby.

    Miss any one of them and you have an 80% probability of living in poverty.

    Add a fourth item: Keep out of jail. Probability goes to 95% of never living in poverty. If you are in jail you are in poverty unless your name is Martha Stewart.

    A variation:

    1. Graduate from High School
    2. Wait until you are 21 to get married.
    3. Wait until you are married to make a baby.
    4. Get a full time job.

    Probability of never living in poverty goes to 95%

    Poverty is largely self inflicted; however, in today's economy it is very difficult for a young person to get a full time job, thanks to Obama Care. Our public schools are designed to fail. We can depend on the government to make things worse. We have to help each other.

    If you are doing well, adopt a young person to mentor.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    Oct. 10, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    Chris B - Please do some research and find out how the Waltons have managed to work the system to maximize their personal profits while subsidizing their workforce's wages with food stamps? Try justifying that taking of taxpayer money!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    I don't think Utahns hate the poor. Don't go into drama mode. Look at all they contribute to the poor!

    I don't begrudge the poor food. But this program has fallen into abuse. It needs to be re-evaluated. Every program needs to be re-evaluated frequently. This is just an adjustment (to get rid of some abuse).

    Some people who really need it are probably also going to be hurt (that's the way it is whenever people abuse a program)... But I hope in this adjustment there is a way the people who REALLY need it can get the help they need (and that help may not be food, it may be a job, or training needed to get a job). But food stamps shouldn't be seen as a permanent thing, or a way to stimulate the economy, or way to buy poor people's votes.

    It's not a political-tool... it's a humanitarian-tool. Recently this program was drifting into becoming a political-tool (because the current administration was using it that way). THAT view of this program needs to change.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    Re: "Large portions of our military rely on food stamps and WIC."

    And liberals say this as if they're proud of the anti-American nanny state they've created!

    Liberals denied needed military pay increases and pulled back promised benefits, making it necessary for young soldiers with families to beg for food stamps and WIC breakfast cereal and peanut butter. They even insisted that DoD open food stamp centers on military installations to make it easier to panhandle.

    But they've never retreated from requiring soldiers beg for charity. Why would they? It's all part of their plan to make sure all Americans become dependent on government, so they can use government largesse as a weapon against political foes.

    Beyond sad.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    I wish that unemployed people really had opportunity to work, but millions do not seem to. The comments here are arrogant, make unjust assumptions and indulge in blanket condemnations, even if sometimes right about gov. welfare.

    I don't know how many might be lazy, but I doubt that all are and, if we make any assumption, may it be the charitable one that a great many just cannot find work. There is a dearth of jobs, if you hadn't noticed yet, and surely millions have looked honestly for work and found nothing.

    I wish that government policy had,by now, freed up the economy by lowering tax rates and drastically cutting spending, not spending trillions on waging war for example; these are hardly defensive wars and are not generally popular except in Congress.

    There would be no need, or excuse if you like, for food stamps if people were more charitable privately, but I see, by responses so far, that many are not even just in their assumptions about the unemployed. I hope that those who have made such assumptions are generous in their private donations.

    Mormon 8:37 - does it apply?

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 9:55 a.m.


    I wish more people were like the Waltons, and worked to put food on the table, created value and created thousands of jobs, rather than feel sorry for themselves and blame others for their problems, justifying taking taxpayer money.

  • djc Stansbury Park, Ut
    Oct. 10, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    A lot of nice Christian comments here. Not one person thinks that these working poor might be benefited by an increase in what the robber barons are required to pay their employees. No, universally they blame the poor for being poor. I have never and would never accept food stamps, not even when I was unemployed for months on end. I work two part-time jobs to get by now, but I sure don't begrudge poor people help. I was raised better then that. I do begrudge the Walton family their .14% of all US wealth. That is $93 Billion, in case you wondered. Less people would be hungry if some of that money had been shared with employees. But that evidently isn't the Utah American way any more. $600 a month for food is high and if poor people were taught how to make meals from commodity goods their food bill would be much less, but come on man, why begrudge the poor food. I often wish that some of the more virulent commenters hereon where suddenly in the shoes of the poor. I really think their song would change quickly.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Oct. 10, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    It has long been said that: "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach him to fish you feed him for the rest of his life."

    This is true only if you have access to the water and there are fish there. People need access to resources to survive. The government has been making much land formerly used to graze cattle off limits. Big Surprise, beef production is down. Government is also cutting off access to many other resources required for our economy to flourish.

    We have massive areas of vacant government land. In ancient Israel people were given a "Land of Inheritance" a small plot of land that could not be taken away. Why not do this for the poor today.

    1. Give them some land.
    2. They build a micro home costing under $10,000.
    3. Start a aquaponic garden. You can raise enough vegies and fish to feed a family of four in only 300 square feet.

    Let's make people self reliant permanently and end the dependency now.

  • esodije ALBUQUERQUE, NM
    Oct. 10, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    Imagine how many people will be hurt when the bottom falls out of the dollar and we have total societal collapse. All those trillions upon trillions in deficit spending won't have seemed like such a great idea then.

    Oct. 10, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    Large portions of our military rely on food stamps and WIC. Our country is not going broke because we spend too much money taking care of the poor.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    Associated Press stories reliably promote the Obama adminsistration's propaganda themes. In this case- "if you cut a penny from 'free stuff' programs The Children will die or something."

    Note that they do not mention that every dollar given to these relatively well off "poor people" has been taken away from a hard working tax-paying citizen who might want to improve their own family's food, or save for college, or buy new goods which help hire people.

    One mother lost some (but not all) food stamp money when one of the kids qualified for other benefits after his father (obviously not part of the family) died. Obviously taxpayers' dollars from that "free stuff" program could be used for food.

    The "poor" in America mostly live in pretty good conditions compared to the truly poor in other parts of the world, or even to average American family conditions 50-100 years ago.

    It used to be that families (a vanishing concept itself) provided for their own needs. Now the government welfare plantation is seen as obliged to provide middle class comforts to anyone who can find some excuse to demand them.

    Americans are generous people, being taken advantage of.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    Raise your hand if you would like $632 a month in free food.

  • Lifelong Ute Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    Mitt Romney was right about the 47%

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    Food Stamps was an excellent example of a "safety net" when used the way it was SUPPOSED to be used. But it was never supposed to be a tool for the administration to artificial stimulate the economy, buy votes, and cover up real problems.

    When the administration sent people out to solicit people who didn't need it to get on it (to grow the rolls as much as possible)... it departed from it's intended purpose and people started abusing it even MORE than would normally occur no a program like this (because the administration hired people to actually ENCOURAGE and RECRUIT people to abuse it).

    It's unfortunate that people who really need the assistance are probably now going to be hurt because people abused this program (and the government ENCOURAGED them to abuse it).

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    1 in 7 people receiving these benefits?

    That's unacceptable.

    Clearly there is incentive for these people to not get jobs, as they will lose this taxpayer money when they do.

    1 in 7 people in the country are not incapable of providing for themselves. They have just realized its easier to take other people's money than earn their own.

    Go get jobs!

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 8:04 a.m.

    Why in the world are there people who have been on food stamps over 4 years?

    I thought in nearly all cases these were temporary benefits in which taxpayer money was taken to give to those just temporarily down on their luck?

    4 years is way too long.

    Get a job. Or another job. And another one.