The Diane Rehm Show

your guesses sugjustion that poor people are scamming the system is insulting....as a boy my single mother was on food stamps for a time, and we did'nt buy beer or crab legs, there are scammers at all levels of society, my mother was able to find work with great pay a benefits and was able to get off welfare for good, I'm married and my sons don't know what it's like to be on welfare, you're such a tippical right winger.

I am stunned that some of your panel thinks it's acceptable for a food stamp recipient to purchase crab legs! I'm all for choice, but as a tax payer there should be certain "luxury items" that cannot be purchased with food stamps. I am a mother of 3 and the wife of an Air Force officer - we have a good income and lack for nothing, but I don't spend my husband's hard earned money on something that expensive. Why should the American public pay for crab legs?

No doubt that there are people committing fraud in regard to food stamps. Know a few of them. Know folks who need food stamps who can not get them. So how can the fraud be cleaned up and those who really need them get them?

Steven do you think the Wall Street banksters who received taxpayers funding should have to not only pay back those loans with interest which they have not but those who have not should have to get to work for the funding? They need to get busy

I am listening to your program today with great interest. I volunteer at a food bank and there are many people who come in who have been coming in for years to get help. This is very frustrating, as there is no help given for them to CHANGE their lives. They depend on our providing supplemental food. There are some clients who absolutely DO need our help. They cannot provide for themselves, and it is our obligation as a society to help them. But I am concerned that our charitable inclinations in this country are negating the potential for people pulling themselves up out of poverty.

Mr. Moore keeps arguing that food stamps do not constitute a stimulus to the economy. While I don't necessarily agree with the practice, I do believe food stamps are a stimulus because they function as income assistance; they free up the earned income a family would have spent on food to be used for other purchases in the economy. Without the stamps, they simply aren't making as many discretionary purchases on other things that drive the economy, because food must come first.

I would like to see those opposed to SNAP try to live on that money for a month! If you CAN'T work due to disability.

Mr. Moore keeps arguing that food stamps do not constitute a stimulus to the economy. While I don't necessarily agree with the practice, I do believe food stamps are a stimulus because they function as income assistance; they free up the earned income a family would have spent on food to be used for other purchases in the economy. Without the stamps, they simply aren't making as many discretionary purchases on other things that drive the economy, because food must come first.

Obesity? Really, holy one. Obesity due to high fructose corn syrup, that stresses the adreneline and insuline system, a roller-coaster of stress, but exposure of this 'fact' hidden by another Bush/Cheny League "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," program, in service to corporate backers. Of course, special forces of various types, coming out of athletic programs, etc., knew this, and those that knew, covered their friends who were 'stressed on the job' over there in the Middle East. But, The Church Groups sent the junk, and were seen, and gloried in their boxes of junk mailed to those poor, from the heartland, reservists, and guard units who lived on the 'faith of their fathers,' and whose families did not know about the 'roller coaster of stress, complete with Papal or Preacher Blessing. Oh, Holy Egg Noggin!

I'd like guests and commenters to state what they believe about the hungry, first. The following are probably not exhaustive, but do cover most of the people I hear talk about the issue:
0.) Those who cannot support themselves adequately deserve to starve if their families can't or won't help them. (Hard-core Randroid.)
1.) Those who cannot support themselves adequately deserve to starve if their families and private charity can't or won't support them. ("Libert"arians, some conservatives.)
2.) Those who cannot support themselves do not deserve to starve, and we should not allow such to happen even if it takes state (most conservatives) or federal (liberals) governmental action---and the taxation that implies.
3.) As in 2.), but stop paying attention to 'cannot' (some liberals and social democrats, techno-utopian communists [as opposed to Bolschewiks, who like Randroids seem keen on letting 'parasites' starve])

(The preceding could offer more options with 'deserve to starve' changed to something like 'do not _deserve_ to starve, but must because that is the Way of the World/God's Decree/the Judgement of the Most Holy Market, and we can't do better than that'.)

I believe that government, like any good technology, obeys Asimov's First Law for robots, and should not allow humans to die when there is an alternative. I also believe that since the Market is a wonderful technology, but one which is not perfect at all times and in all domains, that State action can improve on its 'natural' results, so there is in fact an alternative.

But the main point of this exercise is to say: we really should not debate the issue with anyone cleaving to 0.) or 1.), because there was a time when those obtained and we decided that we could do better than that. Their proponents are not in our Overton window, and should be kept out of it, and not be consulted as to the future of attempts that they believe to be Evil, or at least completely inadvisable.

Let's not forget that processed food is much cheaper than healthy food. Also, obesity is just a little more complicated than that. Obesity has much to do with addiction, emotions, and family history. So let's not forget to stop oversimplifying complex problems.

Stephen Moore needs a big dose of EMPATHY. Every time he answers a question, his snark factor and snicker while saying the economy is terrible is really sad. We're talking about REAL PEOPLE here and deserves more compassion. This attitude is exactly what's wrong with our political system. Too many people are more interested in rhetorical exercises than talking straight about what's wrong and more importantly HOW TO FIX IT. Stephen Moore sounds like a real jerk.

Fraud is always the scapegoat used when discussing helping the needy, yet when fraud happens on Wall Street or wealthy tax evaders we do not hear much concern on the right, if anything we hear 'more tax cuts for the wealthy'. Would it not be a higher moral ground to provide for the needy and address 'fraud' rather than penalize the needy because of supposed 'fraud'?

From Kris:

Great show as always! What about setting up government-run locations where only food necessities are available in bulk for SNAP participants? (e.g. no Crab Legs!). Reminds me of State Run liquour stores in Utah. This could provide a means of distributing excess food to those who need it an focus those in need to purchase only needed food (sugare, flour, potatoes, meat, salt, etc) while also reducing the middle man and saving money.

On an other note: What are the current demographics of SNAP recipients? I would suspect the mid-20 to mid-30's crows is growing due to college costs and low wages.

Thanks! Kris

I think things have to be in context- it also could have been the price of the crab-legs per pound were on sale and a better buy-- over the summer, lobster here was cheaper than the good grade of hamburger and certainly more healthy. I was a wife of an Air Force officer in the 1980's and had the benefit of shopping at the Commissary- those prices were lower than what the public had access to, I would hope you also have that privilege.