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
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »juliegilburd wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
Whether or not the UK minimum wage is sufficient to support a single person depends on quite a few factors, primarily their location. In many parts of the country (aka not London/commuter belt) it's perfectly possible - but probably not fun unless you're into cheap hobbies. I've done it myself so it does get on my nerves slightly when people blanketly claim the minimum wage isn't enough for a minimum living cost. It isn't in London, but that's a different claim.
Just as in the US(Excepting NY, DC, Seattle, LA/SF) It's quite sufficient. and in some places more than sufficient. Places like Montgomery AL, or Columbia, SC, or Abilene TX, It's sufficient for a couple on a single income, these are obviously examples, and not an exhaustive list.
The last statement does not make sense to me. Minimum wage in the U.S. is $9.00/hr. At 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year ($18,720 annually), that puts the earner in the 2nd to lowest income bracket for 2017, which means they would take home about $1400 if filing married/jointly. I just checked Craigslist and see an average rental for an apartment in Columbia SC could easily be $750/mo. (rents ranged from $575 up to $1200, though the higher end were clearly luxury apts.) So a budget for two people is supposed to look like this?
Rent $750
Utilities (gas/electric/water) $150+ (in my experience, this can be more)
Renter's Insurance $15
Phone (basic cell plan for 2 people) $60
Car payment $250 -OR- Cab/Bus fare for travel to/from work, stores, etc. $120
Laundry $25
That leaves $150-$270 for all the rest... groceries (for 2), life insurance, internet service, healthcare co-pays, haircuts, clothing, car insurance. Not all of those are "necessities", but realistically are a part of most people's lives. How is that quite sufficient? Even if they do get some assistance through SNAP, I just don't see it as "quite sufficient." Even the lowest earners deserve to have an extra $100 a month to put in an emergency fund, you will notice there's no room for that in this hypothetical budget.
Took me forever to type this response, so apologies if anyone covered this angle in the interim.
ETA: I guess minimum wage in South Carolina is actually $7.25, so that changes the take home to $1,131 per month. They changed minimum wage to $9 in my state a few years back and I forgot that wasn't nation-wide.
You're talking about expenses for 2 people. Why isn't the second person working to double the income?
If not married, find a roommate and cut the rent in half.
ditto. At lowest percentile wages, haven't people traditionally NOT expected to afford their own place - either renting a room as a boarder, or sharing with roommates. But it is now apparently often-times expected (and people expect to be able to easily afford perishable non-local food that wouldn't have been available to buy at all decades ago). Expecting to own a car when dirt poor is a pretty new expectation too (at least outside rural areas). It wasn't the case 20 years ago - you took the bus (currently $75/mo in my city or $37.50/mo if you qualify for a reduced fare).
And to a later post- who the hell needs to do 3 loads of laundry per week for 2 people?! from "business clothes", I'm assuming it's not 8 hours/day of hard physical labor. Clothes don't usually need to be washed after a single wear (and I'm guessing most people without their own washer and dryer and without loads of excess time realize this).
I didn't have a washer and dryer for a few years (it was a choice, not an economic necessity) and I did 2-3 loads almost every week. At the time I was working in Arizona and although I wasn't doing physical labor, I did work in a warehouse without air conditioning so I really didn't want to wear shirts over multiple days. Add running clothes, towels, and sheets and it's easy to get 2-3 loads of laundry per week, especially when the washers are regular capacity.
If we're taking into account bedlinen and towels it's not that hard to do 2 loads a week. And then there's splitting colours.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »juliegilburd wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »juliegilburd wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
Whether or not the UK minimum wage is sufficient to support a single person depends on quite a few factors, primarily their location. In many parts of the country (aka not London/commuter belt) it's perfectly possible - but probably not fun unless you're into cheap hobbies. I've done it myself so it does get on my nerves slightly when people blanketly claim the minimum wage isn't enough for a minimum living cost. It isn't in London, but that's a different claim.
Just as in the US(Excepting NY, DC, Seattle, LA/SF) It's quite sufficient. and in some places more than sufficient. Places like Montgomery AL, or Columbia, SC, or Abilene TX, It's sufficient for a couple on a single income, these are obviously examples, and not an exhaustive list.
The last statement does not make sense to me. Minimum wage in the U.S. is $9.00/hr. At 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year ($18,720 annually), that puts the earner in the 2nd to lowest income bracket for 2017, which means they would take home about $1400 if filing married/jointly. I just checked Craigslist and see an average rental for an apartment in Columbia SC could easily be $750/mo. (rents ranged from $575 up to $1200, though the higher end were clearly luxury apts.) So a budget for two people is supposed to look like this?
Rent $750
Utilities (gas/electric/water) $150+ (in my experience, this can be more)
Renter's Insurance $15
Phone (basic cell plan for 2 people) $60
Car payment $250 -OR- Cab/Bus fare for travel to/from work, stores, etc. $120
Laundry $25
That leaves $150-$270 for all the rest... groceries (for 2), life insurance, internet service, healthcare co-pays, haircuts, clothing, car insurance. Not all of those are "necessities", but realistically are a part of most people's lives. How is that quite sufficient? Even if they do get some assistance through SNAP, I just don't see it as "quite sufficient." Even the lowest earners deserve to have an extra $100 a month to put in an emergency fund, you will notice there's no room for that in this hypothetical budget.
Took me forever to type this response, so apologies if anyone covered this angle in the interim.
I'm going to copy your list and make some adjustments - obviously I'm in the UK so serious pinch of salt required...
Rent $750
Utilities (gas/electric/water) $150+ (in my experience, this can be more) I pay £50 ~ $70 in the UK - is it really so much more expensive in the US? I have a big flat with 10ft ceilings, it isn't cheap to heat...
Renter's Insurance $15
Phone (basic cell plan for 2 people) $60 Twice my mobile bill of £15 gives me ~$40
Car payment $250 -OR- Cab/Bus fare for travel to/from work, stores, etc. $120 If you work a minimum wage job wouldn't you walk to work/stores/etc? I get the occasional local bus/cab/train, maybe £20/month ~ $25?
Laundry $25 Ehh???
Do you not have any sort of property/local amenity taxes to pay though? Or is it all income tax?
I do often find that people who have never had to live on less don't understand just how little it is possible to get things for. If you've never known any different they might well be happy with that
And they might enjoy the time they have too!
As a caveat I should have said, I'm using approximate figures, but trying to not be crazy-high on my estimates.
Property taxes are paid by the owner of the property (and theoretically incorporated into the rent amounts). There are state and local sales taxes in my state. Those are just paid at the store when buying taxable items. I live in a fairly low-cost state (Nebraska) have lived in a large city and in two different towns of <200 residents, and my lowest electric bill while living in an apt. was $60, highest about $150. (In a house, bills were $150 up to $375 at times). But there's also a separate natural gas company avg. $50-75/mo. Water bills range from $30-75/mo. Sometimes water is included in rent, but not always.
Yes, you have a point about the transportation. Walking and biking are mostly free except for shoes and maintenance. So we could eliminate that completely, or drop it down to $20/mo for ongoing maintenance.
If you live in apartment you don't usually have a washer/dryer. $1.25+ per load to wash, $1.50+ per load to dry. Average of 3 loads per week for 2 people (example - linens, business clothes, casual clothes) comes to $33 per 4 weeks.
Phone - that is straight out of my budget. Husband and I have 2 flip phones (i.e. not smart phones) with a very basic plan and it costs us $55/mo. When we each had a smart phone with internet the bill was about $175/mo.
Maybe I'm wrong about how these costs play out when compared over the US.
Wow - even the smallest places I've seen here have a washer at least - not always a dryer, but at least a washer.
I guess with the US being so much bigger some things do just cost more to provide than in a more dense country.
I'm in Chicago, so not participating in the cheap living discussion, but here generally speaking rentals won't have in unit washer/driers (and I've never heard of having a washer and no drier since driers got common). Condos all have washer/driers. That was one of the big perks for me years ago when I decided to buy, ridiculous as it sounds.
That doesn't mean you have to go to the laundromat (although I had a place where I did -- in a reasonably expensive part of town, even, although this was late '90s). You will often have a place in the building (but coin operated). Renting a house or a condo or maybe some 2-flats might be different (although my laudromat place was a 2-flat). (Generally if it doesn't have a washer/drier you aren't permitted to add one and there's usually nowhere to do it.)
For the record, here a 30-day pass for public transportation is $100.
It varies here - we are fairly low density urban for the most part, with the majority of rental apartments in individual houses (most frequently an upper and a lower). Most apartments in a private house have hook-ups in the basement. They may or may not already have a washer &/or dryer (in most cases, if they do, it's because a prior tenant left them behind at some point). Some apartment complexes - these usually have coin-op machines in each building. Some resident-only apartment buildings (these probably most have coin-op somewhere in the basement). And some lower end commercial-residential mix buildings (these are less likely to have hook-ups or coin-op machines, since the lower floor is a business), and some high end commercial-residential mixed buildings that I'm guessing will likely have some sort of in-apartment hook-up (and possibly the machines in place as well).
Dryers provide an additional complication as the type of hook-up varies. Most places here have gas dryer hookup, but some have electric. (In addition to attrition, this is another reason you may often find one and not the other already in place). Also- the dryer is not truly necessary. When the pre-existing one went, I didn't bother to replace it (like I did the washer). Most of my clothes that get washed most regularly are synthetics that don't necessarily play well with the dryer heat (or fabric softener residue from another tenant). (Now the spin cycle on a washing machine, on the other hand, truly is wondrous and almost necessary.. take that from someone who often had to wash their clothes in the bathtub when I was a kid).
I went two years without a dryer, with a family of 5. I just hung things on 3 clothes racks and then strung over chairs and such. And yeah, totally get you on hand washing- we frequently did that when I was a kid as well. I love my washing machine now 2 -
Driers aren't really a common necessity in the UK, most people, myself included, will just hang on the line or on airers in the house. In the summer, even those who do have one, are more likely to hang outside. We're surprisingly environmentally friendly in this instance!2
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Driers aren't really a common necessity in the UK, most people, myself included, will just hang on the line or on airers in the house. In the summer, even those who do have one, are more likely to hang outside. We're surprisingly environmentally friendly in this instance!
I actually enjoyed hanging clothes-it was a relaxing process It did get annoying to have clothes all over the place though lol. 0 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Driers aren't really a common necessity in the UK, most people, myself included, will just hang on the line or on airers in the house. In the summer, even those who do have one, are more likely to hang outside. We're surprisingly environmentally friendly in this instance!
I actually enjoyed hanging clothes-it was a relaxing process It did get annoying to have clothes all over the place though lol.
Yeah, I don't love that I have to hang it all over the place (no outdoor space at all here), in a one bed flat I could live without it but it's also normal for me.1 -
The landlord pays the water in almost every apartment here. Electric will vary a lot on whether someone is using an air conditioner. Gas (heat) will vary a lot per person (some places have way better insulation than others and the insulation in a lot of older homes has compressed/degraded; some people crank the heat up a lot higher than others). (Heat, including for water, is almost universally gas rather than electric here. Heat in most places is either forced air or radiators, although I have lived in a few apartments that relied on a space heater in the kitchen for heat.).
My bills are usually:
heat ~$30-40 summer, ~$80-90 winter (62°F setpoint). (note: most are estimated with the rare recorded meter reading..so the seasonal breakdown may vary from this).
electric ~$40-70 (no A/C)
Cell phone $32.62
Internet $45 (I sometimes consider canceling, but I do like watching TV a few times a week).1 -
We have a laundry room at our complex; it's $1.00 to wash and $1.00 to dry (per load). I have a small apartment, so the gas and electric aren't usually that high (heat is a bit more in winter and electric goes up some in the summer -I have central AC - but management company pays our sewer, trash, and water costs.
I didn't do bad at the grocery store today; picked up a lot of healthy stuff on sale and used coupons for some to boot. My bill came to about $135 for almost a full cart as result, including bar soap, bathroom tissue, and paper towels.0 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Obesity IS because people are overeating. Diabetes IS because people are overeating.
I honestly don't know enough about cancer, but I do know "all things in moderation" and most cancer studies (rats and aspertame comes to mind) is because they fed the subjects 100s of times the normal amount.
If a food is legitimately laced with poison, then it will put you in the hospital. Immediately. Clickbait "science" articles are just fear-mongering woo.
I know your post was in response to someone else's (which I'm not going to address because that's a whole other can of worms, haha) but I just wanted to clarify something: obesity can be caused by medical conditions and medications, too, not just eating habits. However, it's up to each individual to find a way to compensate for that (and many don't).1 -
(Sorry for double post!)
In regards to the conversations about cheap/expensive living;
I have to live in a high cost-of-living city because I need access to the hospital and specialist doctors available there. I don't get food stamps, but I get a cheque every month for about a grand intended to cover all my costs. That seems like a lot to some people, but when I break it down to a monthly cost:
Rent: 375 w/ utilities (EXTREMELY cheap in this city; average is about 600 PLUS utilities)
Internet: 80 (internet plans are expensive here but very high speed)
Phone: [80 covered]
Doctors: Between 350 [PLUS 300 that's covered by government]
Medication: [400 covered by government]
Buss Pass: 80 (need it to get anywhere in the city)
Total: 885$
Remaining for Food: 115$
Less than 4$/day meaning typically only one meal a day.
Welcome to living below the poverty line.
In regards to the original topic of the thread:
I don't think America could get themselves together enough to implement restrictions that people won't complain about. No offense to that country, but there are a lot of people on food stamps who just want to eat/drink junk; sometimes because it's cheaper than eating healthy, which a lot of the government doesn't seem to understand. It's people with lots of money making decisions about people and situations they know very little about; flawed system.
3 -
deannalfisher wrote: »If anyone is interested in a book about a similar topic - $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America - http://amzn.to/2w7rYQc
I read it a few months ago - it covers info about some of the different welfare reforms over the years and how they have positively/negatively impacted those who live below the poverty level in the us
personally - not a fan of regulating what can be bought with SNAP - however, I would be in favor of places (stores, foodbanks) maybe offering a free class in how to buy/prepare food that is cheap and easy - for many people I think that is something they struggle with - especially depending on living situation (maybe no stove, or only a hot plate etc).
We do programs like that for our college students when they are going to be living off-campus and preparing their own food the next year. "How to Stock a Kitchen" (food and pots/pans/utensils), "How to Turn Recipes into Groceries" is another popular one. So is "Couponing and Bargain Shopping"--we tell them which days of the week they can shop which grocery stores for the best deals.
We also provide info on the campus food bank and local ones. A lot of students face food insecurity, about half are from low-income households.2 -
For anyone learning to cook or wants to know how to stock basics check out the brothers green eats on you tube they do a lot of videos on how to make food with limited supplies and space. a lot of 5 ingredient or less stuff and a lot of ways to use simple equipment like a hot pot or a foreman grill to cook just about anything. They seem to be geared towards college students and people who are learning. They started cooking when they got tired of fast food in college.0
-
I will comment on this.....
I saw lots and lots of comments about "government money, government rules". Hold on, folks! That is my money and your money. Not the governments. That money is taken out of my pay check and your pay check in the form of taxes. So, it is ****NOT**** the government's money....
At the first of the month I see people paying for their food with EBT cards. I am not sure how I feel on that subject. Sure, everyone falls on hard times at some point in time. But, what is the government's responsibility in that? And for how long? Is it okay that three generations are on food stamps (grandma, mom and daughter)? That is an interesting question and debate.
But, back to this question - a good portion of the food that I see in the people's carts are candy, chips and soda. A GOOD portion.
So, should there be some "guidance" as to what one can purchase while on Food Stamps? UGH!!!!
I answered a question about 'overweight people paying more for health insurance' and this is - essentially - the same question. Well, very similar.
My answer there was "Yes, but with reservations".
So, my answer here will have to be the same.....Yes, but with reservations!
My concern is that this is a very slippery slope. I do not want government having any say - directly or indirectly - in anything related to health. Once the government starts 'managing' health (via data accumulation, et al) a lot of bad things can start to happen. Well, that is my opinion.
Education would be the solution to my reservations. Hold on - the government runs the school system! DOUBLE UGH!!!!! LOL!4 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Here's an analysis of what is bought with SNAP: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased.pdf
How do gov't provided food subsidies (or more general welfare programs for the poor if it's encompassed within) work in Australia, Christine? (or others)
That link doesn't seem to work for me. What's the main idea?
It's a detailed report/analysis, so hard to summarize, but basically SNAP and non SNAP households have similar buying patterns.
This is what I thought... But let's restrict people already going through so much.
I dont think telling people they can't use food stamps on soda et al is going to cause anyone hardship. Hopefully they would spend the money they save on soda on something with a little more nutritional substance.
I asked upthread where does it end then?
It ends when they get off food stamps.4 -
-
witchywoman167 wrote: »
Does this work across everyone's money? I mean, by that logic - you go to Walmart and buy some necessities, they pay their staff. Should you get a say on how Walmart staff spend their money? After all, it's your money that you were forced to pay for those necessities...4 -
witchywoman167 wrote: »
Most people receiving SNAP funds are not paying Federal income tax which funds the program.3 -
We have had extremely successful trials of welfare cards in Australia where 20% can be withdrawn as cash and the remainder can only be used on necessities.1
-
We have had extremely successful trials of welfare cards in Australia where 20% can be withdrawn as cash and the remainder can only be used on necessities.
I am yet to see evidence of the bold. I know that's what the government is saying, but the actual evidence coming out of the trial communities is ambivalent at best. Coupled with how incredibly expensive the program is to implement, I'm skeptical as to its overall utility.
There is compelling argument that the money being spent on the cashless card trial could have produced much greater results if they had spent that money on support services in the affected areas.1 -
We have had extremely successful trials of welfare cards in Australia where 20% can be withdrawn as cash and the remainder can only be used on necessities.
Successful for who? The mostly indigenous communities who have been subject to these restrictions? Did the already malnourised preschool aged children presenting with sexually transmitted diseases have better cholesterol markers and reduced obesity risks?
Did these communities where genetic predisposition to diabeties see improved out comes? What about kidney disease? Suicide rates? Sexual abuse?
Did restricting the welfare benefits of indigenous people in isolated communities 'close the gap' between mortality rates for indigenous vs non indigenous Australians?
If so I'd love to see those statistics and how the 'extremely successful'quarantine of welfare payments has helped in improving health in the areas it was implemented.
3 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »We have had extremely successful trials of welfare cards in Australia where 20% can be withdrawn as cash and the remainder can only be used on necessities.
I am yet to see evidence of the bold. I know that's what the government is saying, but the actual evidence coming out of the trial communities is ambivalent at best. Coupled with how incredibly expensive the program is to implement, I'm skeptical as to its overall utility.
There is compelling argument that the money being spent on the cashless card trial could have produced much greater results if they had spent that money on support services in the affected areas.
Unfortunately we have spent incredible amounts of money on support services with not a lot to show for it. If you give alcoholics and drug addicts cash they will no doubt spend it on alcohol and drugs. At least this way their children are more likely to be fed and looked after.0 -
We have had extremely successful trials of welfare cards in Australia where 20% can be withdrawn as cash and the remainder can only be used on necessities.
Successful for who? The mostly indigenous communities who have been subject to these restrictions? Did the already malnourised preschool aged children presenting with sexually transmitted diseases have better cholesterol markers and reduced obesity risks?
Did these communities where genetic predisposition to diabeties see improved out comes? What about kidney disease? Suicide rates? Sexual abuse?
Did restricting the welfare benefits of indigenous people in isolated communities 'close the gap' between mortality rates for indigenous vs non indigenous Australians?
If so I'd love to see those statistics and how the 'extremely successful'quarantine of welfare payments has helped in improving health in the areas it was implemented.
Yes, you're right - sorry. Let's just continue giving them cash...0 -
You guys are funny... on one hand yelling you have freedom, choice, and the ability to live your life as you want... except when it comes to someone else and the 25 cents you pay in taxes lol6
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »We have had extremely successful trials of welfare cards in Australia where 20% can be withdrawn as cash and the remainder can only be used on necessities.
I am yet to see evidence of the bold. I know that's what the government is saying, but the actual evidence coming out of the trial communities is ambivalent at best. Coupled with how incredibly expensive the program is to implement, I'm skeptical as to its overall utility.
There is compelling argument that the money being spent on the cashless card trial could have produced much greater results if they had spent that money on support services in the affected areas.
Unfortunately we have spent incredible amounts of money on support services with not a lot to show for it. If you give alcoholics and drug addicts cash they will no doubt spend it on alcohol and drugs. At least this way their children are more likely to be fed and looked after.
But are they? There's not actually any conclusive evidence that's been the case...0 -
I agree with most of your comments on this posting. I take exception to the fact that everyone buys junk food with their benefits. Not true. I had to get food stamps because I got hurt on the job (government job with full benefits). My employer did not want to pay me anything for two months. I have a 7 year old daughter to support. I would have been okay with not receiving them for myself. My daughter needs to eat. Don't be so quick to comment on things that you don't know anything about. People fall on hard times and just need the support temporarily. Everyone is not always trying to buck the system.5
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »witchywoman167 wrote: »
Does this work across everyone's money? I mean, by that logic - you go to Walmart and buy some necessities, they pay their staff. Should you get a say on how Walmart staff spend their money? After all, it's your money that you were forced to pay for those necessities...
Does Walmart haul your a.s.s to jail if you don't buy necessities from them?2 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »witchywoman167 wrote: »
Does this work across everyone's money? I mean, by that logic - you go to Walmart and buy some necessities, they pay their staff. Should you get a say on how Walmart staff spend their money? After all, it's your money that you were forced to pay for those necessities...
Government receives funding through threat of violence, power of a gun.
Wal-Mart does this through free market capitalism. There is no use of force in this equation.
See the difference?2 -
If it's their money then they can spend it on whatever they want. But it comes from the gov't (taxes) so the gov't gets to make the rules.1
-
Realizing that this may derail the thread, but I think this is a great conversation.
As part of any temporary benefits application process what would be your opinion on mandatory education of the following (as applicable):
Nutrition/Weight Management
Cooking
Budgeting
Home Economics
Thinking back to my military service, where if one applied for financial assistance they had to first attend a basic finance course and have their budgets reviewed by a counselor. This was a very effective program with an extremely low rate of repeat applications.
I'd absolutely be in favor of this.1 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Bring back the poor house! The state should have full control over those pesky people daring to live in poverty and need state assistance.
I really despair of our attitude to those at the bottom of the pile.
I have a large number of First Cousins. One of them, who was one year older than I, was added to the welfare rolls at age 12 when her father died and she received U.S. Social Security benefits for being an orphan. Those expired when she turned 18, but college was free to her because of her orphan status. Preparing for that, she started producing children at age 16 so that she had government benefits for unmarried mothers and their children to replace her government benefits to orphans when she turned 18. At 19 she agreed to marry a man who was quite unable to produce an earned income and she kept receiving generous government assistance for her needy children, her low-income household, and oh-by-the-way her medical care was free, too. It was to her benefit that her older brother was a prosperous schmuck who provided her rent and grocery money unknown to the government. That's the cousin. I have a sister whose decidedly different course of life has been showered with great wealth. One day my sister was speaking with my cousin and asked her directly, "Why don't you get a job?" My cousin replied, "I make more money on welfare than I could at minimum wage."
It is that one person's story, my cousin, that more influences all my thoughts on government assistance to the needy than any other. She died of cancer 14 years ago because the free government medical care was a bit less than timely at delivering care.
We, as a society, don't need to be cruel as you parody, but we don't need to be schmucks, either.
I know this wasn't your point, but it does make me wonder at a society that pays so little in minimum wage that people in some circumstances are better off receiving aid instead of working . . . .
There was a documentary a couple of years ago, and I can't remember what it's called, but one of the people who was in it was a young single mother. Over the course of the documentary, all she wanted to do was find a job and get off of 'welfare'. She did end up finding a full time job, but realized that it put her over the cap pf being able to qualify for assistance but below what she actually needed to feed her kids. Obviously it's slanted (because it's a documentary), but I wonder how many people we have in the US in similar situations?
This causes me to ask the next level of "Why?"
Wage is based on market forces, primarily skill set, so why do we have a population lacking the skills to earn a minimum livable wage?
Well, for me, I wasn't self supporting when I worked at McDonald's and Dairy Queen. I found these jobs dreadful, and took an unskilled factory job, which at least was full time so higher paying. I asked for a semi-skilled job, and then a more skilled job, and then I joined the USAF to hopefully earn a skill and get money for college. The skill part didn't work out very well, as I ended up in a specialty with little application to civilian life, but the general job experience was invaluable, plus the money for college, and who knew health benefits were going to turn out to be so valuable.
I see entry level jobs in fast food as starter jobs. They take very little skill, and so the pay is commensurate.
Perhaps there should be mandatory basic personal finance classes in junior high and high school - this is how much X, Y, and Z jobs pay and this is how much it costs to support yourself, yourself plus one child, etc. The goal would be to encourage people to get the training or education they need to afford the life they want.1 -
The actual Florida bill proposed in the OP is a complete nothingburger. It requires the Florida Dept. of Children and Families to request a waiver to prohibit buying soft drinks on SNAP until it's granted by the Feds. It's posturing so that the representative who proposed it can make some political points with his constituents next election time.
You can read the actual bill here:
https://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0047__.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0047&Session=2018
The whole thing is reveals more about the supporters than anything else.
Does it save taxpayer money? NO.
Does it prevent waste or fraud of taxpayer money in entitlement programs? NO.
Does it promote health or fitness to the people receiving the entitlements? NO.
Does it single out the people on these programs for the purpose of pandering to the representative's political base? You betcha!
If the representative could get away with it, he'd propose a bill to hire this woman to follow SNAP recipients through the checkout line.
ETA: Link to the actual legislation that started this nonsense.
Oh, Florida. Because testing aid recipients for drug use saved the taxpayers so much money >.<
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?mcubz=30
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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