Chew 1

Samantha Chew

October 19, 2019

Eng 111

Kim Lacey

Title

A point-by-point discussion
of both strengths and limitations of your position, arguing overall that
yours is superior.

Conclusion
that drives home your thesis and looks to the future.

In today’s America, there is a growing debate about how much the government should

intervene in our daily lives. Some say that food and health care is a basic right, and the

government should be intervening and ensuring that its people are cared for and receiving life

saving treatment regardless of their financial situation. Others argue that one should be self

sufficient and be able to afford basic necessities like groceries and antibiotics. This discussion

often includes government aids like medicare and SNAP programs that assist people in

purchasing these necessities. In recent news, these government aid programs have come under

fire and there have been proposals to cut budgeting for them that would deprive millions of

groceries and basic health care. In response to these budget cuts, politicians and celebrities alike

have taken to doing a ‘food-stamp challenge’ to prove the necessity of these assistance programs

and have taken into account the hardships that citizens below the poverty line face. These people

say that it is near impossible to feed themselves on the money they get, much less several

children or a spouse. Those opposing this challenge refute by saying that programs like SNAP
 Chew 2

are purely supplemental and should be used as such, making the challenge bogus. To some

beneficiaries of these programs, that may be true. However, to those who live in true poverty

with families to feed, SNAP can only cover a fraction of what it takes to sustain them. The food

stamp challenge provides a real look into the difficulties of poverty and how essential

supplemental programs are, and while these programs were not designed to be depended upon,

there is a large group of people in America who desperately need these programs in order to stay

afloat.

There are many who do not believe that citizens in poverty deserve the money they get

from the government in the form of welfare checks or SNAP benefits. As previously stated, one

reason for this is because these progr​ams were designed to be supplemental, and complementary

to the income that the beneficiary is already receiving. Christine Romans, a reporter for ​CNN

explained, “The government designs it so this is on top of what little money you might have,

food pantries, soup kitchens. Some people are getting meals quite frankly in schools and the like,

like kids are getting, you know, two meals a day in schools” (as cited by Geraghty, 2013). This is

an important point that Romans brings up. This was also the reason that the food challenge

received heat from opposers. The challenge proved to be difficult to lawmakers because it was

meant to be difficult and people were not meant to have their supplements as the only source of

grocery money. More adversaries of governmental assistance programs claim that it is too easy

to gain access to them, and the people that do take advantage of them. In a news article by ​The

Washington Post, ​author Helaine Olen concedes, “...one could apply for and receive

Supplemental ​Nutrition​ Assistance Program benefits -- better known as ​food​ stamps -- in a

majority of states based on income alone, and not assets, no matter how wealthy the applicant”
 Chew 3

(“Billionaires,” 2019).​ ​It is also important to note this loophole, as Olen is writing of a

millionaire who exploited this opportunity and gained national attention, eventually resulting in

legislative action from the Trump Administration. These points are the forerunners for the

objection of welfare and SNAP programs, and it is important to state them objectively for what

they are. However, while these are strong arguments, they prove to not be airtight.

While those who are against governmental aid bring up very good arguments, they are

weak and can easily be disproved. The first being that governmental programs are to be used as a

supplement only. It is true that welfare was created to be an aid during the Great Depression.

Yet, a very basic historical education can show that economic life before and during the Great

Depression was not all that great, and that governmental assistance was needed well before that

time period. Additionally, it can be said that those in the Hooverville slums during the Great

Depression would have most definitely been using their welfare checks as their main way of

buying food. Furthermore, even back then this new Welfare program was not quite good enough.

Flash forward to today, when still, this welfare program is just not quite good enough. Professor

Rachel Vaughn of UCLA discusses this issue in an article in which she presents, “...1 in 8

Americans or roughly 38 million people [utilize food stamps], 6 million of whom report no other

income” (Vaughn, 2017). What Vaughn is saying is that yes, there are six million people using

government aid as their sole source of obtaining food to live. In accordance with that, ​The

Washington Post ​reported, “​A family of four earning less than $2,400 a month is eligible for

help​” (Turque, 2013). While it is great that a family is eligible for help, they will also need to pay

other expenses for that month, such as rent/mortgage, insurance, electricity, gas, water, internet,

phone, groceries, clothes, incidents, and other miscellaneous expenses if they are expected to still
 Chew 4

live as first world citizens. Not only that, but as a program that is designed to help those in need

to save their money, there is a very slim chance any money will be going into a savings account

at the end of the month​ ​(“Billionaires,” 2019). On top of that, those who carried out the food

stamps challenge who were recovering from breast cancer and suffering from type II diabetes,

testified that it was extremely difficult to find healthy foods while staying within their budget

(Turque, 2013). It goes without saying that having to live off of a poor diet will only lead to poor

health, causing more health expenses down the road. As for there being loopholes to gaining

government assistance such as welfare or SNAP benefits, there is no denying that they certainly

exist. However, the Trump Administration is working very hard at abolishing this and cutting off

around three million recipients in the process. The reason this loophole exists in the first place is

because most states automatically declare someone eligible for benefits if they receive any

assistance from the government in other areas. The reason they make this so easy is because

most people in need are not even aware of and do not file for the benefits they can receive, and

since they are already eligible in other areas, there is no need for an asset check (“Billionaires,”

2019).​ ​Does this program need some reformations? Of course, but it is unsure whether or not

keeping track of savings and cutting $2.5 billion dollars is the way to go. These programs are,

after all, designed to encourage people to save​ ​(“Billionaires,” 2019).​ ​In the topics of those who

do and do not deserve benefits and how they spend it, this view only begins to scratch the

surface, as there is much more that can be said.

Although I have never personally benefited from government safety nets, I believe it is a

human right to have food, especially in a first world economy. With the amount of food surplus

and the production abilities we have in our country today, there is really no reason to have an
 Chew 5

issue of hunger. After doing research on the topic of food stamps and government assistance, it

has become very clear that many Americans are terribly blind to the issue of poverty in America

and that it does, in fact, exist beyond just how we see homelessness on the streets in metropolitan

areas. It is my understanding that yes, there are people using taxpayer dollars in ways they

should not, but it is also my understanding that many people rely on this service in order to feed

their families. Moreover, I do not think we should cut these people off completely due to the evil

minority.

Im going to pause here and do my point by point discussion, conclusion, and title later. I am

aware that this is a ​very​ rough draft :)))

A point-by-point discussion
of both strengths and limitations of your position, arguing overall that
yours is superior.

Conclusion
that drives home your thesis and looks to the future.
 Chew 6

Works Cited

Billionaires and millionaires against food stamps. (2019). ​Washingtonpost.Com.​ Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgov&AN=edsgcl.594411169

&site=eds-live

Geraghty, J. (2013, February 5). Lawmakers’ Headline-Grabbing Food Stamp Diet. Retrieved

October 23, 2019, from

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/lawmakers-headline-grabbing-food-s

tamp-diet-jim-geraghty/​.

Turque, B. (2013, February 4). Montgomery officials try eating for $5 a day. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/montgomery-officials-try-eating-for-

5-a-day/2013/02/04/4fe35c00-6e37-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html

Vaughn, R. A. . (2017). “Choosing” Wisely: Paralleling Food Sovereignty and Reproductive

Justice. ​Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies​, ​38​(3), 22–46.

https://doi.org/10.5250/fronjwomestud.38.3.0022