A Food Stamp Anomaly

SEEDS, YOU SAY? With food stamp reliance at record levels in this country, there’s very little to be optimistic about as it relates to America’s “dependence economy.” When it comes to a whole host of taxpayer-funded handouts, dependency is on the rise … which is precisely the way government wants…


With food stamp reliance at record levels in this country, there’s very little to be optimistic about as it relates to America’s “dependence economy.”

When it comes to a whole host of taxpayer-funded handouts, dependency is on the rise … which is precisely the way government wants it.

Seriously … whether it’s food stamps, welfare, extended unemployment benefits or government-funded health care, taxpayer costs related to the subsidization of our “dependence economy” are soaring.  In fact the federal government spent $1.03 trillion on more than eighty different welfare programs during FY 2011 – a 28 percent increase from FY 2008.

That’s thoroughly depressing, although amid this Everest-sized (and growing) mountain of ill-conceived dependency we did find one speck of attempted self-sufficiency.

Well, our founding editor’s wife did …

From the lovely Mrs. Sic Willie:

Some lady at the store just bought fruit and veggie seeds with her food stamps so she could grow her own food!  Lol!  Somehow I don’t really have a problem with that.  She’s working for something and being resourceful which is more than most do with their food stamps!

Indeed …

Rather than continuing to shell out billions of dollars on a program that is only fueling our nation’s worsening obesity epidemic, why isn’t government at the very least insisting that more of the money it hands out go toward people growing their own (healthy) food?

Oh right … because that would make sense.  And besides, government wants people to be fat every bit as much as it wants for them to be poor.

This website does not believe that social welfare is a core function of government.  In fact we believe that government has usurped this role from churches and other non-profits in an effort to justify its perpetual expansion.  We also believe that the best social welfare program the government can provide is supporting an economic climate that incentivizes employment and entrepreneurship.

Which usually involves government getting the fuck out of the way.

Having said that, if government is going to continue to subsidize food stamps then it should begin the process of identifying ways (like this) to make the program reward those who show a desire to be self-sufficient.


Related posts


Workforce Screening: “High Times” Are Back


Ron Paul: End “Welfare For The One Percent”


US Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare … Again



Frank Pytel October 24, 2012 at 11:09 am

If they were growing their own food, fruits and vegetables, they wouldn’t have any money to by McCheetonickers SIC

WTF is your problem. You big jerk.

Have a Great Day!! :)

Frank Pytel


Frank Pytel October 24, 2012 at 11:13 am

By the way, That is now copyrighted.

McCheetonickers © Frank Pytel 2012. All rights reserved.

You may use this word freely to bag on Odumbass or any other Republicrat or Demlican, unless you’re making money off of it. Then you owe me $100.00 everytime you use it.

Frack you if you don’t like it.

Have a Great Day!! :)

Frank Pytel


Joe October 24, 2012 at 11:20 am

Welcome to Obama’s Amerika, comrades!


Smirks October 24, 2012 at 11:26 am

It should be highly entertaining to see how Will explains how poor people will grow food on property they don’t own, in neighborhoods where crops would likely be stolen or vandalized, use pesticides and fertilizers they can’t afford, etc.

Not a realistic solution.

vicupstate October 24, 2012 at 11:38 am

Realistic solutions are not the objective of the right.

Their objective is to create a divide between the middle and lower classes, such that they don’t notice the corporate welfare and favorable tax laws for the wealthy.

sweepin October 24, 2012 at 11:49 am

@smirks. I agree with your sentiment and the gist of your thoughts. You are quite correct about lack of land availability and costs associated with inputs.

However, I must say that as a product of rural SC, a farmboy by birth, and a career in Agriculture in SC and the SE, I have known or witnessed hundreds (yes, I said hundreds, not just dozens) of food stamp recipients who do have home gardens and who tend them proudly, efficiently, and thankfully.

That being said, for most such a practical sounding conceptual idea is an impractical pipe dream in reality for just the reasons you point out.

Infidel October 24, 2012 at 11:49 am

They will plant the seeds, and when the beanstalk matures, they will climb up and steal the hen that lays golden eggs.

Colascguy October 24, 2012 at 2:06 pm

Actually I just watched a you tube video about a hydroponic farms in the inner city. They were cultivating both fish and plants. Basically a tank of fish which had its water being filtered by plants. It was quite amazing and required very little space.

Infidel October 24, 2012 at 4:02 pm

Did the tanks have bulletproof glass?

james the foot soldier October 24, 2012 at 11:36 am

Actually, grow houses are among the most fortified homes in any given ‘hood….

Ol'Rufus October 24, 2012 at 1:35 pm

I was thinking the same thing. They could grow some collards and okra right there beside their real cash crop.

same ol' same ol' October 24, 2012 at 11:51 am

Govt support is a slippery slope. The more that is handed out, the more administration is needed to “control” it. Self-perpetuating, to say the least. Snowballing at its finest.

Problem is, once it starts its nigh impossible to reign in. Dems don’t want it to end, it’s their power base. Repugs say they know what to do, but have never proved it.

Ms. Thatcher has is right, though, at some point, you’ll run out of other people’s money. I suppose when we do, we can truly be called socialista.

Let’s all work for the common good. If you have a job, government jobs included, you must give 75% of your pay back to the government. Everyone’s included, rich, poor, businesses, politicians, professors, everyone.

If you’re rich already, tough shit, your money must be taken away in it’s entirety and given to the govt, then you can get a job making the same as everyone else. You won’t get to keep any more than anyone else.

If you are in govt, same applies to you, from POTUS all the way down. NO EXCEPTIONS.

How many Dems/Progressives/liberals would be left standing then? In reality, they are all about “sharing the wealth” as long as you leave theirs alone. Politicians and educators think they deserve more because of their public standing. Bullshit, you’re either for it or against it.

Let’s all just support the “baby mamas”, illegals, anyone who lives for free on the company dole because it’s the humane thing to do.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Why can’t we focus on that and financial sense from grade 0? No, we can’t do that or there may be future voters who would actually lift themselves out of the mire.

Surely there has to be a better way forward.

Smirks October 24, 2012 at 11:52 am

Rather than continuing to shell out billions of dollars on a program that is only fueling our nation’s worsening obesity epidemic, why isn’t government at the very least insisting that more of the money it hands out go toward people growing their own (healthy) food?

What would be a better way of fighting obesity is to categorize food and give limits to how much one could buy in each category, which I would highly support. Junk food can be THE most limited category. Meats should also be somewhat limited, so if you’re going to buy steak and lobster, I hope you like canned veggies for the rest of the month.

It would work a lot more like WIC then and guide what those who depend on the program are able to purchase with it.

Also, why would we hand out more money to people who are trying to use less? That’s rather odd. People who buy seeds and are able to grow their own food save money, and that money (or food stamps, in this case) saved becomes available to spend elsewhere. They reward themselves through their own effort. Besides, how would you help? Seeds and water are cheap, and the crops would lower their grocery bill. Give them garden supplies stamps?

Food stamps and similar programs should be doled out based on need, and we should be focused on making sure the program actually meets that need. That includes making sure there are rules that stop food stamps from being spent poorly, as well as rooting out welfare fraud.

Staffer October 24, 2012 at 12:08 pm

You say that government has “usurped” churches and charities to help the poor. How is that? I belong to a church and I am involved in several non-profit charities. I have never once heard anyone in any of those institutions that has said, no we shouldn’t help poor people because the government does it. On the contrary, I have found that those institutions have grown thin trying to help local entities that are being cut by government (mostly state government). In a perfect world, private institutions could take care of the poor and weak but that’s just not feasible. So, the government didn’t usurp anybody. It took over a function that private institutions could not simply bare. Also, I’m tired of tea baggers saying that government “likes” people to be on welfare or “likes” abortion. That is stupid shit. Reality is that these things exist and you have to deal with them. That is not to say that you want them to exist.

? October 24, 2012 at 2:11 pm

“I have never once heard anyone in any of those institutions that has said, no we shouldn’t help poor people because the government does it.”

You’d never hear that, especially in a church…even if people felt that way.

I think you are mischaracterizing slightly though, as the idea is that if more people have money in their pocket versus having it taxed away for a variety of gov’t run programs that they might be inclined to give if they don’t, or give more if they do already…and that the money given woulnd’t have the overhead costs associated with gov’t programs.

Carry on.

Smirks October 24, 2012 at 4:27 pm

…the idea is that if more people have money in their pocket versus having it taxed away for a variety of gov’t run programs that they might be inclined to give if they don’t, or give more if they do already…

Sure, they might be inclined to give or give more. Or, they won’t. What happens if they don’t?

And, by cutting those government programs in their entirety, the already heavily burdened services of food banks, churches, and charity organizations would be overwhelmed and unable to keep up to the immediate increase in demand, at the very least for a period of time.

and that the money given woulnd’t have the overhead costs associated with gov’t programs.

The problem is that private charities have their overhead costs too. Churches like to spend money on all sorts of charitable functions, not just food, not to mention paying a small staff (including the pastor(s)) and possibly construction for new or improved church buildings. Private charities often do have administrative overhead.


Page 88 lists the salaries of those at United Way making over $100,000. However, as noted here, one of the previous CEOs made over a million in compensation:

The board of directors fired King after the I-Team reported she was paid more than $1 million — most of it in a hefty retirement plan.


Charities may also structure how they administer the funds they are given in an inefficient manner, or may not competently serve their cause. They may collect their funds through telemarketers and only receive a fraction of the money “given” to them. They may spend quite a pretty penny advertising just to get donations in the first place. There’s also outright fraud associated with charities. Of course, people should know if the charity they are giving to is a good one and that a majority of the money given actually serves the cause, but that doesn’t mean they will.

Also, in the case of a recession like the one we just experienced, charitable donations drop severely during bad economic times. There’s no possible way charities would be able to sustain efforts to feed the amount of people currently receiving food stamps. While I don’t typically agree with deficit spending, at least food stamps actually results in people being fed during a time where they may be out of a job or underemployed, even if we do have to borrow the money.

There’s plenty of room for a private system to lose money. That being said, the public system isn’t perfect either, and there are some things the private system could potentially do better. I’m not sure which would ultimately result in more money “lost,” a private-only system or the current public-private system that we have.

Roseanne October 24, 2012 at 12:17 pm

Before food stamps, churches and other charities weren’t able to feed everyone–there was a real problem in this country with hunger. No reason to think they could do it if food stamps went away.

sweepin October 24, 2012 at 12:27 pm

Preach, Roseanne.

To carry your historical perspective a bit further….I can remember as a young person when churches made their contributions and assistance programs discreetly and without a public face attached. Some still do. Others, both institutions and individuals associated, make it a public spectacle for self-aggrandisment it seems.

My late father served on “benevolence committees” of the church and one other group. I don’t recall but a couple of times even knowing who was being helped. The truth is that for all the errands and chores I was asked to do, he always managed those tasks himself so as to not unduly embarrass or otherwise offend the recipient.

I’m sorry, but I don’t trust many of today’s religious institutions to provide the solutions. First, they are simply unable financially or logistically, Second, many just don’t see Christian Charity in the same manner that I was instructed in as a young person.

Frank Pytel October 24, 2012 at 12:55 pm


Smirks October 24, 2012 at 4:44 pm

Before Social Security, half of seniors were below the poverty line. Now? 8.9% are in poverty.

Before Medicare, only half of seniors 65 and older had health care coverage, whereas virtually all do now.

One report broke it down further: 54 percent had hospital coverage, and 46 percent had surgical coverage, according to survey statistics cited by the National Health Statistics Reports.

It’s also true virtually all seniors have coverage today.


(Note: The above fact-check is “half true” because Ron Kind claimed Medicare caused the drop in poverty rates, when Social Security appears to be the main cause.)

Point being, these programs were created due to a perceived need for them, as the private sector was not adequately solving those societal problems on its own. This is why I don’t buy the whole “the private sector will take care of it” line.

Frank Pytel October 24, 2012 at 6:00 pm

“Point being, these programs were created due to a perceived need for them, as the private sector was not adequately solving those societal problems on its own.”

The key word being perceived, smirks.

I perceive that government is unfair to me, there for the private sector should rise up against the government and forcibly throw them out.

Just because it is perceived, does not mean a need exists. Take for another example the shows about all these third world countries. They push their actual wages, or lack of, and it creates a perceived need. What they don’t tell you is that you can buy food in these countries for pennies on the dollar. Typically because it is subsidized. Where there is actual starvation, you have some libtard revolutionary that wants to give everything to everyone for free. Noble, but Robin Hood is still a theif just the same.

have a Great Day, Smirks!! :)

Frank Pytel

johnb October 24, 2012 at 2:09 pm

Damn it.
Most of the people on food stamps could work if they would get off their butts.

? October 24, 2012 at 2:17 pm

Why John, why are you being so un-PC you bastard?

You asked for it, get ready for all the numerically oulying statiscal abortions/examples that say otherwise. People without arms & feet, half a brain, etc.

They will make the case and show you the way you mean POS. Prepare to be jumped on with both feet by the caring.


Marvinbland October 24, 2012 at 2:30 pm

I won’t list the statstics … but there are actually alot of people on food stamps who DO work , but they can’t make ends meet ….

and just so you know , there’s a work requriment for abled bodied adults to work in the food stamp program …

Smirks October 24, 2012 at 4:51 pm

Most of the people on food stamps could work if they would get off their butts.

When unemployment is down to 5-6%, telling people to get off their ass may be a bit more understandable. Until then, high spending on food stamps is due to the program actually serving its purpose as a safety net to the unemployed and underemployed.

Frank Pytel October 26, 2012 at 6:05 am


With half the population in jail or on welfare and nearly 8% of the work force illegal immigrants (How do you spell that crap), the unemployment rate will never be 5-6% The best, the absolute best, unemployment has ever been or will be in the last 60 years is somewhere around 35%.

You seem pretty liberla smirks. Or maybe you just play the devils advocate. But stupid you’re not. You know as fact the government numbers on this and many other statistics is BS. Has been for a very long time. Have you ever considered just how many people in this country are actually unemployed. That is, have you ever sat down and totalled the numbers for yourself and include all those people that are excluded, but are still being fed by the working fools of this country?

Have a Great Day, Smirks!!

Frank Pytel :)

? October 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm

Nice new pic of Mrs. Sic. I feel a little creepy because I just “zoomed in” on her rack, thanks for making it hi-res.

She’s a lot hotter than Haley, I don’t know what you were thinking when you were doing the nasty with that skank.

same ol' same ol' October 24, 2012 at 2:59 pm

Fits is out of his league. Sorry dude, it’s true.

Daniel Carver October 24, 2012 at 4:20 pm

That’s exactly what we need. Let’s get them out there planting and picking crops if they want to eat.

We’ll supply the seeds and they can supply the labor to feed themselves.

Sure, Raji at the gas-n-go loses some Colt 40 sales and can’t stock as many Twinkies and HoHo’s, but the only reason he is in business is because of a taxpayer loan that citizen Cracker can’t get anyway.

Libb October 24, 2012 at 5:45 pm

You do know that “citizen Cracker”(s) are the largest group receiving food stamps.

Daniel Carver October 24, 2012 at 6:50 pm

Not per capita. That would be negros.

Daniel Carver October 24, 2012 at 8:32 pm

Of course. Do you know that negros constitute the largest group per capita?

Frank Pytel October 25, 2012 at 5:28 am

Ah cut the crap. Just like the Republicrats and Demlicans, trash on both sides of the ghetto come in all colors.

Have a Jack in your hole Day!! :0

whiny ass bitches.

Frank Pytel

Oshitforbrains2012. Why vote for the lesser of two evils when you can have twice the pain at twice the price.

Thomas October 24, 2012 at 4:58 pm

Unless the Federal Government expects an astro-geological or Fukushima Daiichi radiation extinction level event laying waste to the way of life as we know it, there is a bad smell coming in the winds.

Investors Business Daily is expecting another 5% growth in… inflation next year! Throw in perhaps higher gasoline and lousy business quarterly earnings, you have the dollar buying less and less with the prices going up and up.

What you get today for your federal assistance dollar will buy much less next year. Guess how the recipients will respond?

And if the stock market corrects 20-30%, not knowing how long it will take to get it back, guess who’s pensions will be taken away, too?

Better get those seeds and start those gardens…

Soft Sigh from Hell October 24, 2012 at 5:11 pm

A few decades ago hungry poor people were given simple foods, not money for foods. I think they were mostly commodity foods that the feds were paying producers for as price supports. It was better to give it to poor people here than have it rot in warehouses or ship overseas. Dry maccaroni (sp?), hard American cheese (needed no refrigeration), powdered milk, peanut butter, maybe sealed tins of butter, probably a few other things. I had friends who took people to the county office to pick up their cardboard box full.

But BiLo and all the other stores didn’t make a money on that deal, and you know who has the pull in this society.

Frank Pytel October 24, 2012 at 6:02 pm

Oh yeah. My mom is a libtard. We loved us some gubment cheese. Seriously. Its really frackin good.

have a Great Day!! :)

Frank Pytel

upstate October 24, 2012 at 11:09 pm

I just want a line at the grocery store with no food stamp recipients in it…….like an express lane for tax payers. Every time I get behind one they never know what they are they are and aren’t allow to buy, usually have a brood of unruly kids grabbing at the bubble gum and m&m’s. By the time I get through the line my damn beer is warm.

Frank Pytel October 25, 2012 at 5:25 am

Yeah man. I say though that they should have 1 (ONE) line, and be required to shop between the hours of 10pm and 5 am. They got nothing else to do.

And before I hear it, I say one line not to humiliate them (all though a little shame goes a long way.). I say 1 line because each one of those machines that are used to process welfare payments costs a lot of money. Then the IT and software licensing fees. Added expense to the company will ultimately be passed on to consumers by way of higher product prices.

Now if you really want to be a mean sob and humiliate them, make them go through the line for welfare crap, and then get back in line to buy stuff welfare doesn’t pay for.

Or better yet, the gubment requires all liquor sales be done through a licensed dealer. Your local red dot store. Why not make a state run store that carries nothing but fresh foods, not boxed and not packaged. They could have a bulk rice/beans/pasta section. Its only open one day per week. Now that would be humiliating. Hell, they could shop there for free. Monthly alottment is gone, tough. No need to provide them with any way to pay for it, because its free. Can you imagine the line, at the one store, with 5′ tall letters saying “WELFARE FOOD HERE”.

And before seneseless comes in, yes they can sell they’re food stamps/welfare/etc. for cash. They simply take the card to the store, buy whatever the local pimp/drug dealer wants and they’re still getting back 50 cents on the dollar.


Have a Great Day!! :)

Frank Pytel

Jan October 26, 2012 at 10:57 am

Upstate, stores are a private business. Why do you think the Government should control how a private business structures its check out counter. Why do you think a private business owner should have to give you a preferential place in line because you have money. Maybe he makes more on the family of 4 on food stamps than he does on you.

Oh, I get it. Big Government ok so long as it benefits you.

upstate October 26, 2012 at 12:33 pm


you are an idiot. how long do you think it would take the government, naacp, aclu, and everybody else to jump down the throat of any business that tried to implement such a line. They would be called racist, poor haters, and all kinds of other ridiculous names and probably be shut down completely.

I don’t want the government to make a rule saying that they have to have a line for non food stamp holders, I just want them not not make any rules, laws, or policies that says that they cannot have such a line.

Jan October 26, 2012 at 5:54 pm

Well you are in luck. There is no such rule.

Crooner October 25, 2012 at 2:10 pm

I refuse to buy into the idea that the richest country in the history of the world can’t afford to make sure its citizens have access to food and healthcare.

Frank Pytel October 25, 2012 at 3:14 pm

Access and Freebies are two different things. There is no one that can not walk into a store today to buy a bag of beans. I love ’em. Eat them regularly. Less than $4 for a 5 lb bag. With fresh vegetables and some seasongings I have 75 meals for under .50 cents per meal (+/-). When I use meat it costs a little more.

What more do you want?

Have a Great Day!! :)

Frank Pytel

PS. I think the richest country in the world is now China anyway. So hell yes. Make them buy steaks for their citizens. Every night. Otherwise we won’t buy any more plastic toys or rare earths from them. Frack em.

My bad. Here they are in reverse order per Forbes.

Hong Kong
The United States
United Arab Emirates

I still think China should buy american steaks for all of their citizens for every meal every night. chickens for lunch :P

SCBlues October 25, 2012 at 7:28 pm

Mrs. Sic Willie is apparently just as big an idiot as her husband.

Pray tell how does Mrs. Sic Willie know what “most do with their food stamps”? So Mrs. Sic Willie knows everyone who is on food stamps and knows exactly what most of them do with their food stamps?

Mrs. Sic Willie has the same credibility problem that her husband has.

(How many stories have appeared on this site on the imminent indictment of Governor Haley???????)

Frank Pytel October 26, 2012 at 6:08 am

So…. Romney Right?


Frank Pytel :)

Ana Diaz November 11, 2012 at 4:02 am

This why you’re not journalist. You’re all a bunch of ignorant bastards who think the only people on welfare are baby-mamas. Seeds have been available on Food Stamps since forever. Poor people now include those that have been victims of the recent economic upheavals–perhaps you may have missed that. The problem lies not in having seeds, or growing them, but finding them. Why don’t you try and buy some seeds from any grocery store. The only place you can find seeds is Home Depot or Target, and they don’t accept Food stamps.

Frank Pytel November 11, 2012 at 10:11 am

100% untrue. Food Lion carries them every year. Your not going to find exotic spices or unique vegetables. Tomatoes, Corn, Green Beans.

You are mistaken, but … whatever.

Have a Great Day!! There won’t be many left with Obonehead in charge. :)

Frank Pytel


Leave a Comment