37 votes

Should Ron Paul Supporters Apply for Food Stamps?


With the recent 'controversy' over Dr. Paul receiving and accepting his Social Security Insurance payments, I've 'bumped' this thread back into the conversation:


Should Ron Paul supporters apply for food stamps, housing assistance, energy assistance, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera???

(Previous content referencing Atlas Shrugged has been submitted as a comment below)


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Parasites on the top and the bottom

I always tell people to take any assistance they need - we are far beyond the point where the system can be saved by people acting as responsible individuals - it is going to implode on its own. you can't have a country as out of whack as our own with half of the citizenry not paying federal taxes while giving out billions in entitlements and expect to keep it fiscally afloat (not to mention wars and other massive wastes).

there is no left or right, only system and anti-system.

If you need them

then the answer is yes. Why should you starve?

RP is not against helping our own.

He's against waste, fraud, and funding global dictators along with the military industrial complex. Don't read into his message something that isn't there. He said we need the money for our own peeps not for earmarks and bribes and all of the above. Period.

Keepin' it real.

Great Summary

Thanks for that.

Chris Indeedski!

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.

wolfe's picture

One thing to consider though...

I did apply for food stamps a while back. I was between jobs basically (short way of explaining it) so decided to go ahead and do it for the many reasons I stated.

However, when you start to go through the process, a few things happen... First, they take ownership of you, setting requirements and placing demands on your life, including home inspections, etc. Second, they take ownership of your children, requiring public school education, and setting various requirements.

Both of these things creeped me out greatly and so I let them keep my money. Giving them more control over my life to get my money back, just didn't seem like a good trade off.

But that is another one of their tricks. They steal your money, and make you swear fealty to give you even a small portion of it back.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Ethical dilemna

We know that forced redistribution and coercion are bad BUT I cannot begrudge food stamps. The people suffer under persecution, nobody really has a fair chance anymore, the rich get piles of free money and we're supposed to begrudge people who are hungry?

It seems half of Arizona is on food stamps and these are hard working and productive people.

Wiht the economy continuing to slide we're gonna have more and more hungry people. I AM NOT WILLING TO COUNTENANCE STARVATION.

Most of those who think so actually don't and most of those who think sew actually rip.

Food Stamps are bad

Hunger and lack of housing REALLY allows people to find out what they are made of. I am a more confident and appreciative person because I know what it means to eat out of a garbage can. Nothing in life is scary because I know that I have what it takes to take care of myself.

My adult son left home and started getting food stamps. Then he got a temporary job and when that was over applied for unemployment. In the fall he will be taking thousands of dollars in grants to attend college. This boy has NO idea what to do without his "Nanny State". He is going along with what all his friends are doing. This, to me, is a national crisis.

Morally, taking money is sick, but we can't judge those who take it without disenfranchising my sons entire generation.

Blue Republican

Does your legal status change?

Does accepting handouts from the government change your legal status to that of "beneficiary of the Federal state"? As a beneficiary what are one's rights and duties?

What are the legal ramifications. Is one still a 'Citizen' as defined by the Constitution, or is one now of the collective 'citizens' as defined in the 14the Amendment.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

How does one come under the jurisdiction of the United States? Perhaps by accepting benefits from the federal government?

I prefer to remain a free man on land. Who knows what is hidden in the thousands of pages of federal statues passed each year by Congress.

Free includes debt-free!

I have a problem with the word "should".

If you are in possession of a Social Security Card, YES.

I voted this up, because I, too, think it's an . . .

important thing to discuss.

My answer is: no

one person on here said that too much information has to be given out, but my personal reason is that too much independence of spirit is lost--

it's important, even if you can't have the kind of food others think you should have--

to remain independent. When people get food stamps they aren't as inclined to be careful about what they eat and about providing their own food.

We garden, and we search hard and long for healthy affordable foods--

we have built relationships with local farmers, etc.

It's also possible, if you are energetic about doing research, to eat healthily for less by doing such things as gleaning--

depends upon where you live, but it's possible--

taking away the initiative for doing that is one of the ways food stamps are bad--


We have some people we care about (special needs) who use food stamps; it wasn't our choice/decision, but they use them, and we fear their diets aren't what they should be, for that reason--

As for housing assistance, etc., again--

if people have the cognitive ability to find alternatives, then I think it is sad for the "government corporation" to kill initiative by taking this away--

even in urban centers people can garden. There ARE alternatives to expensive housing, etc.

Robbing initiative is one of the reasons socialism is immoral--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--


Why did you all vote him down?

This is an interesting question, that deserves discussion.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I voted this post down and I wrote it

I have never taken EBT/food stamps but I have used food pantries and eaten at soup kitchens for years.

The difference to me is that I know that the EBT cards are only given out after you fill out pages of paperwork essentially turning yourself over to the system in exchange for their 'goodies', to paraphrase another comment.

With the pantries and kitchens, however, I get real food that has already been grown and is now past sale-ability and will be thrown away if it isn't eaten or taken home that very day.

There has always been an abundance of food to be seen. On a few rare occasions when it looked like they were running low on 'stock' I have excused myself and bought a meal at my favorite authentic (ie cheap) Mexican restaurant.

Having grown up with the world's greatest coupon clipper (mom) and knowing that you can use coupons along with the 'stamps', I would easily be able to use the $250-odd dollars to get at least $5-600 worth of food and would give away some of the excess and also add to my rice, bean, and dehydrated food stockpile.

Also Goldman Sachs administers the EBT program and makes money from it.

Thanks for all the comments and insight. DP people are the best.

Chris Indeedski!

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.

Could both be right?

I read this comment and gave it a plus:
Submitted by wolfe on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 09:01. Permalink
There is no crime in attempting to recover your stolen money.

Then I read this comment...
Submitted by Barracuda_Trader on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 09:25. Permalink
I too have given it great thought. Conclusion is NO. You cannot seperate your spirit from the taking. Your spirit and your integrity will suffer.
... and I gave it a plus, too!

Didn't Ron Paul include earmarks in bills and then vote against them? Kinda like taking payments but voting for Paul/against the system?
See comment by "Artus Register" at http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/ron-paul-is-famous-for...

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

RP voted against earmarks

but when they passed he felt it was his responsibility to take them as he was representing his constituency.

Yes and Thank you.

It supports my point that, if we vote (for those) against such programs we can still accept them without being hypocritical, only taking back what had been taken from us at some point in the first place, i.e., representing ourselves.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

I down-voted my own post!

To clarify: I'm not talking about taking benefits if one is truly in need. What I mean is taking benefits as a protest, or even just for personal gain.

(Donating the extra dollars per month to the campaign would be a personal gain IMO as a RP presidency would help the country and that would help ME.)

Chris Indeedski!

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.

I understand what you meant--


it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

No no no. I survived 2 whole

No no no. I survived 2 whole years with barely any money for food when my husband was in another state attending college. I divided my paycheck in half for each of us and there was only enough money to pay for the roof over our heads and gas money for me to get to work. I became way too thin. People I worked with noticed how thin I became and told me they were worried about me. My inlaws offered me money but I declined. My husband and I survived. I knew this was a temporary sacrifice for our future. Never ever ever compromise your principles.

If you need the service- take it with a clean conscious

I'd feel so much better knowing the money was getting back into the hands of people who are making a difference. We want to change the system, yes, but if you can find some relief within the broken system more power to you. May be just the break you need to get back on your feet to fight the rest of the battle.

I was going to post almost the exact same thing

you said it better.

Live your principles.

Ron Paul has declined the Pension and private security that is available to him. Live what you believe, while it is tempting to accept them every attempt should be made to resist it. IMO

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

I too have given it great

I too have given it great thought.

Conclusion is NO.

You cannot seperate your spirit from the taking.

Your spirit and your integrity will suffer. Then you will become dependent.

Ask yourself; If Ron Paul took advantage of all the freebies would he excite you?
Would you trust him?
Would you have great respect for him?

The kind of honor Ron Paul commands comes at the price of great discipline and resistance to going along with the plan.

The sysytem will crash soon enough.

Will you be strong, ready and able to excell?

wolfe's picture

Ayn Rand...

Took advantage of it, and we still respect her.

The fact is, the money is stolen from you in far greater quantity than you could ever hope to get back. How is it wrong to take back what was stolen?

As far as Ron Paul... He is a paradox in a lot of ways. He also sends money back to the feds. Those things do not excite me. However, it is easier for him to win popular support for his ideas having lived the way he has. But that doesn't mean his approach is the only one or 100% correct one.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Ayn Rand documentary on Hulu.com

"Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged"

Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. -Ron Paul 7/10/03

Ayn Rand was actually a creep

Ayn Rand was actually a creep who plagerized the first line of her book, and whose co-writer Alan Greenspan became chief counterfeiter.

Rand is not ethical, and not someone to look up to. Her book was meant as a farce to those who believed in it, much like the copper mine in the book was a farce. The line being plagerized is telling you*1 that those who claim to be ethical, objective, or intelligent and believing in this book - aren't.

*1 you as in those who bother to look up things that they read and check facts- ie are actually objective.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

I never have respected her--

though some of her ideas may have been sound--as a person she lacked integrity, in my opinion--

not the sort of mother I would have wanted. Creepy person.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

There's nothing wrong in

There's nothing wrong in general with the idea of boycotting or removing yourself from a society. Idea has been used repeatedly in history.

However, the general theme of the book, enviroment, and line who is galt, was plagerized from the book The Driver, which was popular among free market advocates some 30 years before. In that book, which is a lot more cheery than Atlas Shrugged, The Driver is mutal interest, which is about the hero, and is an explanation about how he is able to take control of a railroad and run it - because it is in the interest of the other people on the board that they all do well. The driver. In Ayn Rand's book, she makes mutal cooperation impossible, everyone dies, and that's how she likes it. A lot like Zionism and Israel first by the way, because it is not possibly in the MUTUAL interest of more then 95% of the racial population of the United States. So the world dies for lack of the driver.

Main pointAt the point when the very first, and often repeated, line of your book is plagerized, and "objectivists" of Ayn Rand's cult refuse to look at the fact is the point it is a farce.

Rand actually has quite a bit of characterization of a farce in her book. She was talking about her mindless followers.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Hardly an intellectual movement

Ayn Rand on Arabs

Ayn Rand on Libertarians
Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

And so on and so on. She claimed to be an atheist, but she just seems to criticize Christianity to the nth degree, while every member of the "collective", what she called her inner circle, was jewish. Hardly an intellectual movement when it is based on race.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Ayn Rand (not her real

Ayn Rand (not her real name)was a zionist hypocrite that promoted greed and selfishness and acting only in one's own interest; nothing to be emulated

there is no left or right, only system and anti-system.

Yes, I tend to forget that

Yes, I forget that Ayn Rand wasn't her real name.

She tended to delete parts of her background and re-edit her books for embarassing passages as the years went on. She left out that she went to a college only communist members went to in the Soviet Union, and worked for several years researching Hollywood for the communists (who were trying to infiltrate it) before coming over here.

She deleted passages showing she admired Nietzsche from later books. Also, the earliest editions of Atlas Shrugged are different - one notable difference is she removed the name of Branden from the book's dedication - who was sharing the book cover with her husband - and who she had an affair with.

After they split, she also required everyone to sign a loyality oath to her who was part of her cultish movement. You can find that online, but I personally know, because a family member was subscribing to her newsletter at the time.

Loyality oaths. Calling your inner circle the "collective". Plagerizing, mocking other groups of people, etc.

Yeah, sounds real liberty minded to me. Of course, one of the co-writers of some of the articles in her books and newsletters was Alan Greenspan. Anouther liberty lover!

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.