Pat Buchanan: No Food Stamps Unless Poor Turn to Cannibalism

October 8, 2010

(ChattahBox Political News)—Pat Buchanan, MSNBC’s resident race-baiter and bigoted xenophobe, is falling into line like a good Republican soldier and joining Newt Gingrich’s call to vilify poor people and their need of food stamps to survive the recession. Using old fashioned class warfare during political campaigns is nothing new. And Buchanan and Gingrich are the fathers of odious social wedge issues, rife with coded racism and used to stoke resentment against the poor. Buchanan makes his contribution to Gingrich’s anti-food stamps cause in a piece he penned for the right-wing birther blog WorldNetDaily. As usual, Buchanan manages to take his bigotry to such extremes that he becomes a caricature in unintended self-mockery. Buchanan suggests that there are no starving people in America, because the poor are not so desperate that they have resorted to cannibalism.

Buchanan’s exercise in bigotry and heartlessness, entitled “Food Stamp Nation,” rails against food stamps and all entitlement programs. He longs for a return to the days before the New Deal, when no safety net existed for the poor.

“What a changed country we have become in our expectations of ourselves. A less affluent America survived a Depression and world war without anything like the 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, welfare payments, earned income tax credits, food stamps, rent supplements, day care, school lunches and Medicaid we have today.”

Buchanan derides the poor and unemployed as lazy freeloaders.

“We have a new division in America: those who pay a double fare, and those who forever ride free.”

And because Buchanan doesn’t see corpses in the street or Americans resorting to cannibalism, he concludes that hunger doesn’t exist.

“If you would chart America’s decline, this program is a good place to begin. As a harbinger of the Great Society to come, in early 1964, a Food Stamp Act was signed into law by LBJ appropriating $75 million for 350,000 individuals in 40 counties and three U.S. cities.”

“Yet, no one was starving. There had been no starvation since Jamestown, with such exceptions as the Donner Party caught in the Sierra Nevada in the winter of 1846-47, who took to eating their dead.”

And of course, those “other” people Buchanan doesn’t care for, he casts as the major recipients of food stamps.

“Among the reasons is family disintegration. Forty percent of all children in America are now born out of wedlock. Among Hispanics, it is 51 percent. Among African-Americans, it is 71 percent.”

“Food stamps are feeding children abandoned by their own fathers. Taxpayers are taking up the slack for America’s deadbeat dads.”

CNN’s Roland Martin slammed the right-wing’s attack on the food stamp program, led by Newt Gingrich, during a deep recession when nearly 10 percent of Americans are unemployed.

“I don’t know of anyone who really wants and desires to have to apply for food stamps. Liberals, conservatives, independents, Democrats and Republicans all want jobs. Wanting a paycheck isn’t a conservative value, nor is it the sole province of liberals. Every one of us would like to be paid for our services, and it cheapens the political dialogue to see a so-called smart man deploy such a childish game plan.”

“Newt, anyone who is so crass as to want to capitalize on the misfortune of Americans in one of the most difficult economic times we’ve seen in generations doesn’t deserve to want to represent those same individuals.”

Buchanan tries to make the case that the food stamp program has caused a “spiritual and moral disintegration” of our society.

Buchanan should be well versed in such disintegration, because his unseemly attack on the poor exposes the bigoted pundit as morally bankrupt.

Photo Source: Wikimedia/Kyle Cassidy/Creative Commons Attribution.


4 Responses to “Pat Buchanan: No Food Stamps Unless Poor Turn to Cannibalism”

  1. E Lister on October 8th, 2010 6:10 pm

    Ironically, this Potato Famine mick should be an expert in starvation and cannibalism.

  2. taxed on October 9th, 2010 9:49 am

    A couple days ago I was in the checkout line at the grocery store. In front of me was a really fat woman with two kids. She paid for her food, including a couple cases of soda (not diet) with the food stamps account on her EBT card. Then she paid for a $52 carton of cigarettes and a two six packs of beer with the TANF account on the EBT card. As one of the taxpayers who expended part of his life working to earn that money I have to ask, what part of this is fair to me or anybody else paying taxes?

  3. Guy on October 9th, 2010 12:50 pm

    I think we need to do more for the poor. The issue really is what is the definition of poor. I do not think anyone really wants to wait for anyone to be so hungry that they resort to cannibalism. But on the other hand I do not agree with our social safety net providing such a high level of protection. Our safety net is so protective that there is no fear of being poor. If one can live comfortably on assistance, what is the incentive to get off of assistance? Welfare is costing much more than you think. Welfare is many areas of government that you would not expect. Two examples that I learned of first hand, that caused me great concern.
    First, Michigan Economic Development Department. Sounds like and is a worthy department of our State Government. I discovered that this department offers individuals rent subsidies. The recipients of these subsidies my be truly in need for assistance, but shouldn’t it be through a different department so we can really know the true cost of our welfare. Not hidden in a department that is supposed to be for improving the economy of Michigan. I guess it is improving the economy of the individuals receiving rent subsidy.
    Second, FEMA, I think of disaster relief, emergency housing. Who would want to question a department of the government that helps people who have had their life turned upside down at no fault of their own. Well think rent subsidy in Michigan where there has been no hurricane, no flood, no natural disaster. $1000 from FEMA to help a single mom get caught up on her rent. Again, maybe a worthy cause, but from FEMA? What is welfare really costing us? If you check the records, FEMA may tell you that they do not help people get caught up on rent in non disaster areas. Well, they do provide a fund to The Salvation Army, another worthy organization, to help people as they see fit. I guess it was emergency housing for the single mom.

  4. Nopermit on January 3rd, 2011 5:58 am

    So, back to the work/poor houses of yore, is it, or begging from the local church authorities. And when do corporations pay their fair share to the state and when will farmers be weaned off taxpayer funds, and oil and gas and military suppliers – – and so it goes. Whose on first?

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.