Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Food Stamps Restriction
Replies
-
ButterballBookworm wrote: »The main issue I have with eliminating whole categories of food is that it becomes a nightmare for the retailers. They just do not have the time to go in their computer systems and say "yes SNAP can be used on this, no, it can't be used in this". Right now, the distinction is that already prepared foods cannot be purchased with SNAP but foods that are prepared at home can. There are a few weird things like you can buy a Papa Murphy's take and bake pizza with SNAP, but you cannot buy a whole rotisserie chicken from a grocery store with it.
Who decides which snack foods are and are not healthy? Graham crackers are considered healthy, but potato chips are not? How do the merchants separate them?
One thing that has been proposed that I can see as a way around this for the retailers is "if it is subject to sales tax, it cannot be purchased with SNAP". In my state, candy, soda, and some snacks are taxable. Most food and ingredients are not. Still would not allow that chicken to get purchased, though.
I find this interesting, as because until recently in Canada, this rule wouldn't have allowed the purchase of toilet paper or feminine products. They weren't considered a "necessity" and were subject to tax.
You can't buy those with SNAP anyway.0 -
ButterballBookworm wrote: »The main issue I have with eliminating whole categories of food is that it becomes a nightmare for the retailers. They just do not have the time to go in their computer systems and say "yes SNAP can be used on this, no, it can't be used in this". Right now, the distinction is that already prepared foods cannot be purchased with SNAP but foods that are prepared at home can. There are a few weird things like you can buy a Papa Murphy's take and bake pizza with SNAP, but you cannot buy a whole rotisserie chicken from a grocery store with it.
Who decides which snack foods are and are not healthy? Graham crackers are considered healthy, but potato chips are not? How do the merchants separate them?
One thing that has been proposed that I can see as a way around this for the retailers is "if it is subject to sales tax, it cannot be purchased with SNAP". In my state, candy, soda, and some snacks are taxable. Most food and ingredients are not. Still would not allow that chicken to get purchased, though.
I find this interesting, as because until recently in Canada, this rule wouldn't have allowed the purchase of toilet paper or feminine products. They weren't considered a "necessity" and were subject to tax.
. . . . . they're still taxed in the US
As with all sales tax, depends on the state. Was an issue here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-bruce-rauner-tampon-tax-met-0821-20160819-story.html1 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
Yet each one of these taxpayer funded services comes with restrictions and, generally speaking, people just accept it.
Whilst I'm not in the US, and clearly don't have the local knowledge, I'd be somewhat surprised if access to those was limited based on ones economic circumstances?3 -
LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
I don't "begrudge" anyone public assistance. But it is government money, and I think restrictions on how it can be spent come along with any kind of public assistance. I don't expect the government to just hand it out.
3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
Right. And there are laws and rules about how to access those things and how funds are allocated to them.
I'm not making any kind of nasty judgment -- just pointing out that any big system has limitations/restrictions/rules/etc etc.
For example, the roads are 'free,' but there are laws regarding their use. There are laws about schools and how money for schools is to be spent. Infrastructure isn't built and maintained willy-nilly, but according to government-determined priorities.
I don't see much difference when it comes to food assistance; the government has some say in how the money will be used.
5 -
Just a caution. Around here there are charities where volunteers will shop for handicapped & elderly people. So if you see a very well dressed person paying with a snap card--hold the criticism please. There have been occasions when a volunteer got flack from people in line.11
-
The discussion of SNAP restrictions seems interesting to me (apart from the soda-specific issue), since it seems to cut across some traditional political divisions.
On the whole, it's more of a nanny state impulse to want to nudge or force better choices, such as by making the benefits go farther if used at farmer's markets or for vegetables, to not allow them to be used for junk food, to be tied to education on healthy eating, or - especially -- to be tied to specific dietary choices like WIC (which looks a lot like the traditional food pyramid in some ways -- strong on fruit and veg, but LOTS of grains, etc., no meat (but for minimal exceptions), plenty of milk and juice).4 -
I don't think it's the government's business to save people from themselves.5
-
LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
I don't "begrudge" anyone public assistance. But it is government money, and I think restrictions on how it can be spent come along with any kind of public assistance. I don't expect the government to just hand it out.
But in this case it seems you are arguing for ADDING restrictions, no?
If I were absolute monarch of the US and also convinced of the rightness of my opinions, it's possible I would want to dictate how SNAP could be spent. As a taxpayer and voter, I am not convinced my gov't is the right one to be making particularly specific decisions about how people should spend their food money, even supplemental food money from the gov't.
If you could convince me it would be done correctly and not make the program (and things like check out) a lot more cumbersome, I might change my mind, but for now I think the program works well and there's no reason to drastically overhaul it to make it much more restrictive (as with the claims that it should work like WIC with a limited application only to foods determined to be "healthy").4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
Right. And there are laws and rules about how to access those things and how funds are allocated to them.
I'm not making any kind of nasty judgment -- just pointing out that any big system has limitations/restrictions/rules/etc etc.
For example, the roads are 'free,' but there are laws regarding their use. There are laws about schools and how money for schools is to be spent. Infrastructure isn't built and maintained willy-nilly, but according to government-determined priorities.
I don't see much difference when it comes to food assistance; the government has some say in how the money will be used.
Is anyone saying the gov't CANNOT determine how the money can be spent? I don't see that.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
I don't "begrudge" anyone public assistance. But it is government money, and I think restrictions on how it can be spent come along with any kind of public assistance. I don't expect the government to just hand it out.
But in this case it seems you are arguing for ADDING restrictions, no?
If I were absolute monarch of the US and also convinced of the rightness of my opinions, it's possible I would want to dictate how SNAP could be spent. As a taxpayer and voter, I am not convinced my gov't is the right one to be making particularly specific decisions about how people should spend their food money, even supplemental food money from the gov't.
If you could convince me it would be done correctly and not make the program (and things like check out) a lot more cumbersome, I might change my mind, but for now I think the program works well and there's no reason to drastically overhaul it to make it much more restrictive (as with the claims that it should work like WIC with a limited application only to foods determined to be "healthy").
Nope. Not arguing for adding restrictions.
Just pointing out that if a person is using government money, they should expect some restrictions, and that new ones may be added. I don't find restrictions of this sort outrageous or immoral or insulting -- instead I'd say they are par for the course.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
Right. And there are laws and rules about how to access those things and how funds are allocated to them.
I'm not making any kind of nasty judgment -- just pointing out that any big system has limitations/restrictions/rules/etc etc.
For example, the roads are 'free,' but there are laws regarding their use. There are laws about schools and how money for schools is to be spent. Infrastructure isn't built and maintained willy-nilly, but according to government-determined priorities.
I don't see much difference when it comes to food assistance; the government has some say in how the money will be used.
Is anyone saying the gov't CANNOT determine how the money can be spent? I don't see that.
Earlier in the thread people were saying that it isn't fair to disallow purchase of certain types of food with food stamps.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
Right. And there are laws and rules about how to access those things and how funds are allocated to them.
I'm not making any kind of nasty judgment -- just pointing out that any big system has limitations/restrictions/rules/etc etc.
For example, the roads are 'free,' but there are laws regarding their use. There are laws about schools and how money for schools is to be spent. Infrastructure isn't built and maintained willy-nilly, but according to government-determined priorities.
I don't see much difference when it comes to food assistance; the government has some say in how the money will be used.
Is anyone saying the gov't CANNOT determine how the money can be spent? I don't see that.
Earlier in the thread people were saying that it isn't fair to disallow purchase of certain types of food with food stamps.
I believe they (we?) were saying that they'd be against adding restrictions (i.e., making a particular change), which is what was being discussed.
As a taxpayer and voter, I have opinions on whether or not the gov't should do lots of different things without denying that the gov't has power to do them.1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »My city had a 1 in a 100 year flood a few years ago.Downtown was under water. The people who lived along the river were under water. I don't begrudge them some help. I do begrudge them help again if they continue to live there.
Notwithstanding the influence of global warming and more extreme weather events as a result of climate change, that's a reasonably low risk.
Are we really that risk averse?
For that, I am. I am paying for people with money to have a big house on a big lot on the river. I'll pay it once for an expected emergency but now we know it could happen. I don't want to pay for it again.
And it does bother me that I am giving money to people with an income ten times mine.0 -
Just a caution. Around here there are charities where volunteers will shop for handicapped & elderly people. So if you see a very well dressed person paying with a snap card--hold the criticism please. There have been occasions when a volunteer got flack from people in line.
My husband and I were on public assistance when we were a young married couple due to a severe illness he contracted causing his business to go under. I didn't have a job at the time. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you have to dress like you dragged something out of the garbage. We bought our clothes from 2nd hand stores and were always dressed well (even in designer pieces). We did get some looks when we picked up our boxes at a foodbank so I understand how that happens. Pre-judgement without the complete information. You can't always tell a person's financial worth by how they are dressed. We knew that people who dress well find it easier to get jobs, and that's what happened for us.5 -
Just a caution. Around here there are charities where volunteers will shop for handicapped & elderly people. So if you see a very well dressed person paying with a snap card--hold the criticism please. There have been occasions when a volunteer got flack from people in line.
Though I have to add that I dress well (but cheaply) and I'm dirt poor (on disability and sa in Canada). Not all poor people look like beggars2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »BTW, up here there is no such thing as food stamps. Very few schools have any sort of food program - a small number offer a bit of extra breakfast. There are food banks through donated foods but that's it. And food is more expensive up here by quite a lot.
So you are asserting that people in poverty in Canada do not get gov't aid? Or just that it is not in the very specific form that some of it takes in the US (i.e., food assistance, school lunches).
For example, we've established that Australia (for the most part) does not have aid in the SNAP format, but instead provides non-earmarked funds that cover a variety of needs.
How does aid to needy people work in Canada, if anyone can answer? I'm reasonably certain it's not just private aid/charities.
There is some welfare. It varies between provinces
Up here in Alberta (Canada) a family of 5 could get just under $500 for a month's worth of groceries, and just over $500 to cover other bills like shelter, electrical, and and water bills, and transportation. It is something of a joke. I spend about $300 a week on food for us, over $1200/month, and that excludes some of our meat that we get from a family member's farm. Property taxes are well over $3000 a year. Heating is ridiculous in the winter. Renting would be impossible too as a below average 2-bedroom rental is over a $1000 and may not cover all bills.
One NEEDS to rely on charity to get by up here. Our food banks and drop in centres are charities.
Surprisingly, it looks like the States gets better benefits for their needy.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »BTW, up here there is no such thing as food stamps. Very few schools have any sort of food program - a small number offer a bit of extra breakfast. There are food banks through donated foods but that's it. And food is more expensive up here by quite a lot.
So you are asserting that people in poverty in Canada do not get gov't aid? Or just that it is not in the very specific form that some of it takes in the US (i.e., food assistance, school lunches).
For example, we've established that Australia (for the most part) does not have aid in the SNAP format, but instead provides non-earmarked funds that cover a variety of needs.
How does aid to needy people work in Canada, if anyone can answer? I'm reasonably certain it's not just private aid/charities.
There is some welfare. It varies between provinces
Up here in Alberta (Canada) a family of 5 could get just under $500 for a month's worth of groceries, and just over $500 to cover other bills like shelter, electrical, and and water bills, and transportation. It is something of a joke. I spend about $300 a week on food for us, over $1200/month, and that excludes some of our meat that we get from a family member's farm. Property taxes are well over $3000 a year. Heating is ridiculous in the winter. Renting would be impossible too as a below average 2-bedroom rental is over a $1000 and may not cover all bills.
One NEEDS to rely on charity to get by up here. Our food banks and drop in centres are charities.
Surprisingly, it looks like the States gets better benefits for their needy.
So there's no housing costs support?0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Just a caution. Around here there are charities where volunteers will shop for handicapped & elderly people. So if you see a very well dressed person paying with a snap card--hold the criticism please. There have been occasions when a volunteer got flack from people in line.
Though I have to add that I dress well (but cheaply) and I'm dirt poor (on disability and sa in Canada). Not all poor people look like beggars
And people haven't necessarily never worked or always been in poverty. My clothes last me years because I look after them. I also sew. I happen to not be in poverty now but even when I was I didn't look like it.2 -
Nothing wrong with the government putting restrictions on how people spend their assistance money. When u donate to food banks do you not get to choose what you donate?4
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »BTW, up here there is no such thing as food stamps. Very few schools have any sort of food program - a small number offer a bit of extra breakfast. There are food banks through donated foods but that's it. And food is more expensive up here by quite a lot.
So you are asserting that people in poverty in Canada do not get gov't aid? Or just that it is not in the very specific form that some of it takes in the US (i.e., food assistance, school lunches).
For example, we've established that Australia (for the most part) does not have aid in the SNAP format, but instead provides non-earmarked funds that cover a variety of needs.
How does aid to needy people work in Canada, if anyone can answer? I'm reasonably certain it's not just private aid/charities.
There is some welfare. It varies between provinces
Up here in Alberta (Canada) a family of 5 could get just under $500 for a month's worth of groceries, and just over $500 to cover other bills like shelter, electrical, and and water bills, and transportation. It is something of a joke. I spend about $300 a week on food for us, over $1200/month, and that excludes some of our meat that we get from a family member's farm. Property taxes are well over $3000 a year. Heating is ridiculous in the winter. Renting would be impossible too as a below average 2-bedroom rental is over a $1000 and may not cover all bills.
One NEEDS to rely on charity to get by up here. Our food banks and drop in centres are charities.
Surprisingly, it looks like the States gets better benefits for their needy.
Based on what?
Edit: here's a pretty good comparison that indicates for poor families there's a lot more available in Canada than in the US. https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/hoynes_stabile_submission_04272017.pdf0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
Yet each one of these taxpayer funded services comes with restrictions and, generally speaking, people just accept it.
Whilst I'm not in the US, and clearly don't have the local knowledge, I'd be somewhat surprised if access to those was limited based on ones economic circumstances?
I'm not sure what your point is here. My point is that there are restrictions in place with all government services - why would restricting one's access to publicly-funded soda trigger people more than say a library committee deciding that they don't want to make The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn available? It's still some government body making a moral decision about what's 'good for the children'...2 -
....but now we know it could happen...
You said it yourself, one in 100 years, so it was known to be a risk before. The inherent risk doesn't increase because the risk has matured once. What I would say is that it's likely that the risk is increasing as a result of climate change, but does that just change the calculus of civil contingency planning?And it does bother me that I am giving money to people with an income ten times mine.
Quite...0 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
Yet each one of these taxpayer funded services comes with restrictions and, generally speaking, people just accept it.
Whilst I'm not in the US, and clearly don't have the local knowledge, I'd be somewhat surprised if access to those was limited based on ones economic circumstances?
I'm not sure what your point is here.
Apologies, I thought it was pretty clear. Essentially how far does the imposition of restriction delve into the individual space.
A fire service will respond to an incident, rather then checking credit score. A police officer isn't going to decline to investigate certain crimes reported by certain people, based on policy. I recognise that there are both individual and structural reasons that mean it is the case, but they're not laid out in statute.My point is that there are restrictions in place with all government services - why would restricting one's access to publicly-funded soda trigger people more than say a library committee deciding that they don't want to make The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn available?
The library one is an oddity to me, essentially allowing a restriction on access to information on a moral basis is a bit bizarre. In the UK, if you want the book the library will get hold of the book. That may involve an inter-library transfer, hence a delay, but we don't restrict access. Personally speaking from about the age of 10 I would routinely get books from the adult section of the library, rather than children's. I don't recall a low income section, although given that where I grew up was pretty destitute I suspect the whole thing was.
Fwiw I may also misunderstand the nature of a library committee, is this an employee based committee, or a user-group type thing that directs the buyers?
The discussion upthread about regulated minimum wage sheds some light as well. Essentially the argument is that the business owner shouldn't be required to pay a living wage. That means that the business owner would be getting a subsidy. If the subsidy went straight to the business and was then disbursed as wage there wouldn't be a constraint on how it's spent. If it goes direct to the employee in the form of state supplement then why should it. That said I'm thinking about how we approach a living wage in the UK, which is essentially the point at which access to some state support ceases.
5 -
They should run food stamps like they run the WIC program. The food stamps can only be used for certain foods. If they want the junk, they have to pay cash out of their own pockets.5
-
I'm sure the composition of library committees varies from community to community - the one thing I would daresay they all have in common is that no one is elected to these committees. Yet as appointed bureaucrats, unanswerable to an electorate, they are able to pick and choose which books, authors, or perspectives are made available.MeanderingMammal wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
Yet each one of these taxpayer funded services comes with restrictions and, generally speaking, people just accept it.
Whilst I'm not in the US, and clearly don't have the local knowledge, I'd be somewhat surprised if access to those was limited based on ones economic circumstances?
I'm not sure what your point is here.
Apologies, I thought it was pretty clear. Essentially how far does the imposition of restriction delve into the individual space.
A fire service will respond to an incident, rather then checking credit score. A police officer isn't going to decline to investigate certain crimes reported by certain people, based on policy. I recognise that there are both individual and structural reasons that mean it is the case, but they're not laid out in statute.My point is that there are restrictions in place with all government services - why would restricting one's access to publicly-funded soda trigger people more than say a library committee deciding that they don't want to make The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn available?
The library one is an oddity to me, essentially allowing a restriction on access to information on a moral basis is a bit bizarre. In the UK, if you want the book the library will get hold of the book. That may involve an inter-library transfer, hence a delay, but we don't restrict access. Personally speaking from about the age of 10 I would routinely get books from the adult section of the library, rather than children's. I don't recall a low income section, although given that where I grew up was pretty destitute I suspect the whole thing was.
Fwiw I may also misunderstand the nature of a library committee, is this an employee based committee, or a user-group type thing that directs the buyers?
The discussion upthread about regulated minimum wage sheds some light as well. Essentially the argument is that the business owner shouldn't be required to pay a living wage. That means that the business owner would be getting a subsidy. If the subsidy went straight to the business and was then disbursed as wage there wouldn't be a constraint on how it's spent. If it goes direct to the employee in the form of state supplement then why should it. That said I'm thinking about how we approach a living wage in the UK, which is essentially the point at which access to some state support ceases.
At its barest, my point is that governmental paternalism is governmental paternalism. In my state, the law says I have to wear a seatbelt if I drive on the public roadways. Much like the proposed soda restriction, the government has taken away my agency as an adult human person to make that decision for myself. Was my dignity taken away? Or do I need to be in a specific socio-economic strata to claim victimhood?2 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
Yet each one of these taxpayer funded services comes with restrictions and, generally speaking, people just accept it.
Whilst I'm not in the US, and clearly don't have the local knowledge, I'd be somewhat surprised if access to those was limited based on ones economic circumstances?
I'm not sure what your point is here.
Apologies, I thought it was pretty clear. Essentially how far does the imposition of restriction delve into the individual space.
A fire service will respond to an incident, rather then checking credit score. A police officer isn't going to decline to investigate certain crimes reported by certain people, based on policy. I recognise that there are both individual and structural reasons that mean it is the case, but they're not laid out in statute.My point is that there are restrictions in place with all government services - why would restricting one's access to publicly-funded soda trigger people more than say a library committee deciding that they don't want to make The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn available?
The library one is an oddity to me, essentially allowing a restriction on access to information on a moral basis is a bit bizarre. In the UK, if you want the book the library will get hold of the book. That may involve an inter-library transfer, hence a delay, but we don't restrict access. Personally speaking from about the age of 10 I would routinely get books from the adult section of the library, rather than children's. I don't recall a low income section, although given that where I grew up was pretty destitute I suspect the whole thing was.
Fwiw I may also misunderstand the nature of a library committee, is this an employee based committee, or a user-group type thing that directs the buyers?
The discussion upthread about regulated minimum wage sheds some light as well. Essentially the argument is that the business owner shouldn't be required to pay a living wage. That means that the business owner would be getting a subsidy. If the subsidy went straight to the business and was then disbursed as wage there wouldn't be a constraint on how it's spent. If it goes direct to the employee in the form of state supplement then why should it. That said I'm thinking about how we approach a living wage in the UK, which is essentially the point at which access to some state support ceases.
Actually, the problem is that the definition of "living wage" has changed. In most of the US, minimum wage is sufficient to provide food, shelter, transportation, and a small entertainment budget for the employee. Just as it was designed and intended to do.
It was implemented to correct the abuses of pay that did not provide sufficient resources to provide the above, and where employees were sleeping on the street, or required to accept substandard housing provided by the employer. Or worse, where the employees were not paid in money but in credits that could only be spent in the company stores and could only pay rent in company towns.
Today, there is a push to redefine "living wage" as a wage that allows one to support a family. Should we then have a minimum wage for single people... a minimum wage for married people... a minimum wage for families with children?9 -
Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.2
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
Which is the point/purpose of a minimum wage. And exactly as it should be.
The minimum doesn't include providing for anyone else.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
Which is the point/purpose of a minimum wage. And exactly as it should be.
The minimum doesn't include providing for anyone else.
My point is, our minimum wage is below the living wage. Although the government rebranded the minimum as the living wage without making it an actual living wage.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions