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
-
I feel like so many people are taking the humanity/ culture out of eating.
Aside from that, don't forget the people who only have a microwave for cooking, limited to no refrigeration, and might not have the kitchen options you propose. There was a time my business plummeted, I struggled to get more clients to stay on my feet, I was homeless and had 4 kids to feed without a kitchen, I got divorced, I had been a work at home/self employed mom for 11 years and no one would hire me. We had to make a lot of choices that weren't good for us. We ate anything that didn't need cooking. We drank our calories on really bad days. I picked up two more jobs, but still wasn't back on my feet for another year. I was awake and working 18 to 20 hours a day. I ate more and drank things to keep me awake so that I could keep going. And it took even one more year to start REALLY feeling like I was getting somewhere. I still have food stamps, but I'm relying on them less and less. My food choices have always been the best choices I could think to make given my circumstances. I didn't have the time to sit in government classes to learn how to eat better. I couldn't have time to Google meal ideas. I was too busy working my a$& off to better myself and my situation. Not to mention, I have 4 kids to raise.
So next time you judge someone for buying a can of soda or bag of chips, just remember that you don't know their struggle or where their mind is. Lots of soda helped me drive uber and lyft all night while my kids slept and stay awake long enough to take them to school the next day. That soda was my future meal ticket.
while I understand - self employed for 30 years and raised two girls alone and made some of the same lousy food choices...looking back it was not needed and I could have taken better care of myself along the way. sorry that I started so late in life taking care of myself.f
1 -
I feel like so many people are taking the humanity/ culture out of eating.
Aside from that, don't forget the people who only have a microwave for cooking, limited to no refrigeration, and might not have the kitchen options you propose. There was a time my business plummeted, I struggled to get more clients to stay on my feet, I was homeless and had 4 kids to feed without a kitchen, I got divorced, I had been a work at home/self employed mom for 11 years and no one would hire me. We had to make a lot of choices that weren't good for us. We ate anything that didn't need cooking. We drank our calories on really bad days. I picked up two more jobs, but still wasn't back on my feet for another year. I was awake and working 18 to 20 hours a day. I ate more and drank things to keep me awake so that I could keep going. And it took even one more year to start REALLY feeling like I was getting somewhere. I still have food stamps, but I'm relying on them less and less. My food choices have always been the best choices I could think to make given my circumstances. I didn't have the time to sit in government classes to learn how to eat better. I couldn't have time to Google meal ideas. I was too busy working my a$& off to better myself and my situation. Not to mention, I have 4 kids to raise.
So next time you judge someone for buying a can of soda or bag of chips, just remember that you don't know their struggle or where their mind is. Lots of soda helped me drive uber and lyft all night while my kids slept and stay awake long enough to take them to school the next day. That soda was my future meal ticket.
while I understand - self employed for 30 years and raised two girls alone and made some of the same lousy food choices...looking back it was not needed and I could have taken better care of myself along the way. sorry that I started so late in life taking care of myself.f
Being self employed isn't quite the point, it's the food preparation options homeless/ poor folks have access to. I feel confident that I made the best choices I could make given my options. I don't think I could have changed much during that time. The lack of having a fridge or a stove puts a huge dent in the food I had access to. Also thank goodness for 24 hour grocery stores with free coffee. I absolutely hate coffee, but that saved me on days when I was running on 2 to 3 hours of sleep and continued to push forward.3 -
nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?8 -
I feel like so many people are taking the humanity/ culture out of eating.
Aside from that, don't forget the people who only have a microwave for cooking, limited to no refrigeration, and might not have the kitchen options you propose. There was a time my business plummeted, I struggled to get more clients to stay on my feet, I was homeless and had 4 kids to feed without a kitchen, I got divorced, I had been a work at home/self employed mom for 11 years and no one would hire me. We had to make a lot of choices that weren't good for us. We ate anything that didn't need cooking. We drank our calories on really bad days. I picked up two more jobs, but still wasn't back on my feet for another year. I was awake and working 18 to 20 hours a day. I ate more and drank things to keep me awake so that I could keep going. And it took even one more year to start REALLY feeling like I was getting somewhere. I still have food stamps, but I'm relying on them less and less. My food choices have always been the best choices I could think to make given my circumstances. I didn't have the time to sit in government classes to learn how to eat better. I couldn't have time to Google meal ideas. I was too busy working my a$& off to better myself and my situation. Not to mention, I have 4 kids to raise.
So next time you judge someone for buying a can of soda or bag of chips, just remember that you don't know their struggle or where their mind is. Lots of soda helped me drive uber and lyft all night while my kids slept and stay awake long enough to take them to school the next day. That soda was my future meal ticket.
while I understand - self employed for 30 years and raised two girls alone and made some of the same lousy food choices...looking back it was not needed and I could have taken better care of myself along the way. sorry that I started so late in life taking care of myself.f
Being self employed isn't quite the point, it's the food preparation options homeless/ poor folks have access to. I feel confident that I made the best choices I could make given my options. I don't think I could have changed much during that time. The lack of having a fridge or a stove puts a huge dent in the food I had access to. Also thank goodness for 24 hour grocery stores with free coffee. I absolutely hate coffee, but that saved me on days when I was running on 2 to 3 hours of sleep and continued to push forward.
im many many years out of that time of my life now...my children are grown and highly educated and successful and I have had years to rest. in that hind sight I can say that the entire situation would have been better if MY HEALTH WERE BETTER and sustained in a more healthier way at that time. bc everything wAs dependent on me...it holds true that the healthier I was the healthier everyone was - coffee is not "unhealthy" and im sorry I really disagree with you. no cook options for healthy food are available.
0 -
nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
What makes you think every person on stamps isn't working?3 -
nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
What makes you think every person on stamps isn't working?
national statistics. its not EVERY person but statistics will tell you what you are looking for.
4 -
nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.6 -
nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I don't really agree with this either...I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to. we all prospered. I did not go out of business bc of paying people fair wages I went out of business WHEN GREEDY CORPORATE PEOPLE AND POLICTICIANS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY IN 2008-9-10 bush era destroyed our business landscape and real estate industry.
7 -
nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I don't really agree with this either...I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to. we all prospered. I did not go out of business bc of paying people fair wages I went out of business WHEN GREEDY CORPORATE PEOPLE AND POLICTICIANS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY IN 2008-9-10 bush era destroyed our business landscape and real estate industry.
So they were adding a hypothetical $10 an hour to your business and you paid them $50.
You went out of business because you were bad at business.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I don't really agree with this either...I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to. we all prospered. I did not go out of business bc of paying people fair wages I went out of business WHEN GREEDY CORPORATE PEOPLE AND POLICTICIANS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY IN 2008-9-10 bush era destroyed our business landscape and real estate industry.
So they were adding a hypothetical $10 an hour to your business and you paid them $50.
You went out of business because you were bad at business.
I was in business 30 years. "years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what"
2 -
nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
What makes you think every person on stamps isn't working?
national statistics. its not EVERY person but statistics will tell you what you are looking for.
The statistics do not state if the individual is: self employed, laid off, on disability, negotiating disability and unable to work, partial disability, elderly, receiving long term care, looking for a job, pursuing education. Statistics are just a number and not a viable look at the model as a whole.3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I don't really agree with this either...I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to. we all prospered. I did not go out of business bc of paying people fair wages I went out of business WHEN GREEDY CORPORATE PEOPLE AND POLICTICIANS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY IN 2008-9-10 bush era destroyed our business landscape and real estate industry.
So they were adding a hypothetical $10 an hour to your business and you paid them $50.
You went out of business because you were bad at business.
I was in business 30 years. and you cant add..omg. are you a bush fan?
50 is 5 times 10.
You said you paid 5 times what you had to. That means you paid 5 times what they were worth.
"years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what" cant read or add huh.I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to
IF you want quality people what you "have to pay them" is at or above market value. My market value is $45-65 an hour, and I add 75-200 an hour of value.
If you want someone with my skills, you "have to pay" ~50 an hour. 4-5 times that is 200-250 an hour.
The same principle applies if the market value of a person is $8 or $10 or $3.
You seem confused by basic principles of hiring and personnel management.3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I don't really agree with this either...I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to. we all prospered. I did not go out of business bc of paying people fair wages I went out of business WHEN GREEDY CORPORATE PEOPLE AND POLICTICIANS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY IN 2008-9-10 bush era destroyed our business landscape and real estate industry.
So they were adding a hypothetical $10 an hour to your business and you paid them $50.
You went out of business because you were bad at business.
I was in business 30 years. and you cant add..omg. are you a bush fan?
50 is 5 times 10.
You said you paid 5 times what you had to. That means you paid 5 times what they were worth.
"years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what" cant read or add huh.I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to
IF you want quality people what you "have to pay them" is at or above market value. My market value is $45-65 an hour, and I add 75-200 an hour of value.
If you want someone with my skills, you "have to pay" ~50 an hour. 4-5 times that is 200-250 an hour.
The same principle applies if the market value of a person is $8 or $10 or $3.
You seem confused by basic principles of hiring and personnel management.
if the wage I had to pay was 10 bucks an hour...and I paid 14 - 15 an hour..would be $4- 5 more and hour than i had to" that would be a living wage.
3 -
nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
How do you define a "livable wage"? Who defines this wage? A wage that is going to be adequate for a young single person with few responsibilities is certainly not going to be "livable" for a single mother with four kids to feed. If we base that wage on that single mother then the pay would certainly be a bit excessive for someone on the other end of that spectrum. Where is the cutoff? One kid? Two kids? Two kids a dog and a cat? ... or do we simply adjust pay based on economic need?0 -
REMINDER:
Attacking other posters is against the forum guidelines. If you need to review the guidelines they can be found here:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
To avoid attacking other members please keep your debate responses focused on the content of the post, not the poster.
Thanks for your cooperation,
4legs
MFP moderator0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I don't really agree with this either...I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to. we all prospered. I did not go out of business bc of paying people fair wages I went out of business WHEN GREEDY CORPORATE PEOPLE AND POLICTICIANS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY IN 2008-9-10 bush era destroyed our business landscape and real estate industry.
So they were adding a hypothetical $10 an hour to your business and you paid them $50.
You went out of business because you were bad at business.
I was in business 30 years. and you cant add..omg. are you a bush fan?
50 is 5 times 10.
You said you paid 5 times what you had to. That means you paid 5 times what they were worth.
"years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what" cant read or add huh.I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to
IF you want quality people what you "have to pay them" is at or above market value. My market value is $45-65 an hour, and I add 75-200 an hour of value.
If you want someone with my skills, you "have to pay" ~50 an hour. 4-5 times that is 200-250 an hour.
The same principle applies if the market value of a person is $8 or $10 or $3.
You seem confused by basic principles of hiring and personnel management.
if the wage I had to pay was 10 bucks an hour...and I paid 14 - 15 an hour..would be $4- 5 more and hour than i had to" that would be a living wage.
This whole tangent could have been avoided if you'd said $4-5 more vs 4-5 more.
3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I don't really agree with this either...I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to. we all prospered. I did not go out of business bc of paying people fair wages I went out of business WHEN GREEDY CORPORATE PEOPLE AND POLICTICIANS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY IN 2008-9-10 bush era destroyed our business landscape and real estate industry.
So they were adding a hypothetical $10 an hour to your business and you paid them $50.
You went out of business because you were bad at business.
I was in business 30 years. and you cant add..omg. are you a bush fan?
50 is 5 times 10.
You said you paid 5 times what you had to. That means you paid 5 times what they were worth.
"years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what" cant read or add huh.I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to
IF you want quality people what you "have to pay them" is at or above market value. My market value is $45-65 an hour, and I add 75-200 an hour of value.
If you want someone with my skills, you "have to pay" ~50 an hour. 4-5 times that is 200-250 an hour.
The same principle applies if the market value of a person is $8 or $10 or $3.
You seem confused by basic principles of hiring and personnel management.
if the wage I had to pay was 10 bucks an hour...and I paid 14 - 15 an hour..would be $4- 5 more and hour than i had to" that would be a living wage.
$14 or $15 an hour might be a living wage for a single person, it is not a living wage for a family of 4 (w/o some outside assistance).1 -
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?
Most food banks publish lists of ‘most needed items’ that they would prefer you donate. Most of the food they distribute isn’t from individual donations, it’s stuff they buy in bulk with cash donations based on what their clients need. All the stuff you clean out of your pantry and drop off twice a year is a supplement.
Plus, many food banks get food from tax-funded USDA programs. So no, you don’t get to choose what other people eat no matter how they are receiving food.3 -
happytree923 wrote: »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?
Most food banks publish lists of ‘most needed items’ that they would prefer you donate. Most of the food they distribute isn’t from individual donations, it’s stuff they buy in bulk with cash donations based on what their clients need. All the stuff you clean out of your pantry and drop off twice a year is a supplement.
Plus, many food banks get food from tax-funded USDA programs. So no, you don’t get to choose what other people eat no matter how they are receiving food.
I never said "I" was or even have any desire to choose what other people eat. Just saying that government funds come with government rules and comparing that to my donations = what I decide to donate. This government funds comes with government rules concept is not limited to food stamps.
You are right in that I was thinking more along the lines of what a lot of churches call a "food pantry" that is maintained by the church's budget for that in addition to members donating food based on a listed of needed items (I've never seen soda on this list).
However, since you mentioned Food Banks and that tax dollars (government) help fund these as well, soda is also not on the list of items for that.
2 -
I never said "I" was or even have any desire to choose what other people eat. Just saying that government funds come with government rules and comparing that to my donations = what I decide to donate. This government funds comes with government rules concept is not limited to food stamps.
You are right in that I was thinking more along the lines of what a lot of churches call a "food pantry" that is maintained by the church's budget for that in addition to members donating food based on a listed of needed items (I've never seen soda on this list).
However, since you mentioned Food Banks and that tax dollars (government) help fund these as well, soda is also not on the list of items for that.
But SNAP isn’t a donation/charity from the government, it’s an entitlement program. Meaning anyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the program is entitled to receive it.
The government has to ensure that everyone eligible has equal opportunity to apply for and benefit from the program. Many people in this thread have discussed situations where doctors have told them to eat the kinds of foods people are talking about forbidding. Rare or not, entitlement programs need to accommodate people in these situations.
P.S. most church food pantries get their food from food banks. Unless you know your local food pantry is independent from any regional food bank they are also distributing bulk purchase/USDA food with supplemental donations.3 -
happytree923 wrote: »
I never said "I" was or even have any desire to choose what other people eat. Just saying that government funds come with government rules and comparing that to my donations = what I decide to donate. This government funds comes with government rules concept is not limited to food stamps.
You are right in that I was thinking more along the lines of what a lot of churches call a "food pantry" that is maintained by the church's budget for that in addition to members donating food based on a listed of needed items (I've never seen soda on this list).
However, since you mentioned Food Banks and that tax dollars (government) help fund these as well, soda is also not on the list of items for that.
But SNAP isn’t a donation/charity from the government, it’s an entitlement program. Meaning anyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the program is entitled to receive it.
The government has to ensure that everyone eligible has equal opportunity to apply for and benefit from the program. Many people in this thread have discussed situations where doctors have told them to eat the kinds of foods people are talking about forbidding. Rare or not, entitlement programs need to accommodate people in these situations.
Calling something an entitlement doesn't make it so.
It's charity.
Entitlement is something that has been earned by the recipient or someone associated to them.
This is my number one pet peeve on the subject. SS, Medicare, are entitlements. SNAP, WIC, Medicaid are charity. They may well be the right thing to do, but they aren't entitlements.
And just because a word has been abused for 50 or 60 or 100 years doesn't change reality.8 -
stanmann571 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »
I never said "I" was or even have any desire to choose what other people eat. Just saying that government funds come with government rules and comparing that to my donations = what I decide to donate. This government funds comes with government rules concept is not limited to food stamps.
You are right in that I was thinking more along the lines of what a lot of churches call a "food pantry" that is maintained by the church's budget for that in addition to members donating food based on a listed of needed items (I've never seen soda on this list).
However, since you mentioned Food Banks and that tax dollars (government) help fund these as well, soda is also not on the list of items for that.
But SNAP isn’t a donation/charity from the government, it’s an entitlement program. Meaning anyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the program is entitled to receive it.
The government has to ensure that everyone eligible has equal opportunity to apply for and benefit from the program. Many people in this thread have discussed situations where doctors have told them to eat the kinds of foods people are talking about forbidding. Rare or not, entitlement programs need to accommodate people in these situations.
Calling something an entitlement doesn't make it so.
It's charity.
Entitlement is something that has been earned by the recipient or someone associated to them.
This is my number one pet peeve on the subject. SS, Medicare, are entitlements. SNAP, WIC, Medicaid are charity. They may well be the right thing to do, but they aren't entitlements.
And just because a word has been abused for 50 or 60 or 100 years doesn't change reality.
I am calling it an entitlement program because it literally meets the exact definition of an entitlement program. If you disagree take it up with the dictionary? The federal government? Your local HHS office? God? Because SNAP meets the criteria exactly as entitlement program is currently defined.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »
I never said "I" was or even have any desire to choose what other people eat. Just saying that government funds come with government rules and comparing that to my donations = what I decide to donate. This government funds comes with government rules concept is not limited to food stamps.
You are right in that I was thinking more along the lines of what a lot of churches call a "food pantry" that is maintained by the church's budget for that in addition to members donating food based on a listed of needed items (I've never seen soda on this list).
However, since you mentioned Food Banks and that tax dollars (government) help fund these as well, soda is also not on the list of items for that.
But SNAP isn’t a donation/charity from the government, it’s an entitlement program. Meaning anyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the program is entitled to receive it.
The government has to ensure that everyone eligible has equal opportunity to apply for and benefit from the program. Many people in this thread have discussed situations where doctors have told them to eat the kinds of foods people are talking about forbidding. Rare or not, entitlement programs need to accommodate people in these situations.
Calling something an entitlement doesn't make it so.
It's charity.
Entitlement is something that has been earned by the recipient or someone associated to them.
This is my number one pet peeve on the subject. SS, Medicare, are entitlements. SNAP, WIC, Medicaid are charity. They may well be the right thing to do, but they aren't entitlements.
I definitely agree with you about entitlements and even though it's the right thing to do it's not an entitlement.
I don't necessarily agree with calling it "charity", and this is definitely splitting hairs because we seem to be on the same side here, but "charity" implies that the funders (taxpayers) did so willingly and taxes aren't a choice.
Maybe "government mandated charity" would be a better term.2 -
happytree923 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »
I never said "I" was or even have any desire to choose what other people eat. Just saying that government funds come with government rules and comparing that to my donations = what I decide to donate. This government funds comes with government rules concept is not limited to food stamps.
You are right in that I was thinking more along the lines of what a lot of churches call a "food pantry" that is maintained by the church's budget for that in addition to members donating food based on a listed of needed items (I've never seen soda on this list).
However, since you mentioned Food Banks and that tax dollars (government) help fund these as well, soda is also not on the list of items for that.
But SNAP isn’t a donation/charity from the government, it’s an entitlement program. Meaning anyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the program is entitled to receive it.
The government has to ensure that everyone eligible has equal opportunity to apply for and benefit from the program. Many people in this thread have discussed situations where doctors have told them to eat the kinds of foods people are talking about forbidding. Rare or not, entitlement programs need to accommodate people in these situations.
Calling something an entitlement doesn't make it so.
It's charity.
Entitlement is something that has been earned by the recipient or someone associated to them.
This is my number one pet peeve on the subject. SS, Medicare, are entitlements. SNAP, WIC, Medicaid are charity. They may well be the right thing to do, but they aren't entitlements.
And just because a word has been abused for 50 or 60 or 100 years doesn't change reality.
I am calling it an entitlement program because it literally meets the exact definition of an entitlement program. If you disagree take it up with the dictionary? The federal government? Your local HHS office? God? Because SNAP meets the criteria exactly as entitlement program is currently defined.
"entitlement program" doesn't meet the exact literal definition of anything like entitlement.
I decline to participate in your NEWSPEAK.6 -
happytree923 wrote: »
I never said "I" was or even have any desire to choose what other people eat. Just saying that government funds come with government rules and comparing that to my donations = what I decide to donate. This government funds comes with government rules concept is not limited to food stamps.
You are right in that I was thinking more along the lines of what a lot of churches call a "food pantry" that is maintained by the church's budget for that in addition to members donating food based on a listed of needed items (I've never seen soda on this list).
However, since you mentioned Food Banks and that tax dollars (government) help fund these as well, soda is also not on the list of items for that.
But SNAP isn’t a donation/charity from the government, it’s an entitlement program. Meaning anyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the program is entitled to receive it.
The government has to ensure that everyone eligible has equal opportunity to apply for and benefit from the program. Many people in this thread have discussed situations where doctors have told them to eat the kinds of foods people are talking about forbidding. Rare or not, entitlement programs need to accommodate people in these situations.
P.S. most church food pantries get their food from food banks. Unless you know your local food pantry is independent from any regional food bank they are also distributing bulk purchase/USDA food with supplemental donations.
Yes. The church food panties I am thinking of are independent of the regional food banks and like I said come from the church's budget for benevolence (which comes from memeber's contributions) and member's donations of food items.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »
I never said "I" was or even have any desire to choose what other people eat. Just saying that government funds come with government rules and comparing that to my donations = what I decide to donate. This government funds comes with government rules concept is not limited to food stamps.
You are right in that I was thinking more along the lines of what a lot of churches call a "food pantry" that is maintained by the church's budget for that in addition to members donating food based on a listed of needed items (I've never seen soda on this list).
However, since you mentioned Food Banks and that tax dollars (government) help fund these as well, soda is also not on the list of items for that.
But SNAP isn’t a donation/charity from the government, it’s an entitlement program. Meaning anyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the program is entitled to receive it.
The government has to ensure that everyone eligible has equal opportunity to apply for and benefit from the program. Many people in this thread have discussed situations where doctors have told them to eat the kinds of foods people are talking about forbidding. Rare or not, entitlement programs need to accommodate people in these situations.
Calling something an entitlement doesn't make it so.
It's charity.
Entitlement is something that has been earned by the recipient or someone associated to them.
This is my number one pet peeve on the subject. SS, Medicare, are entitlements. SNAP, WIC, Medicaid are charity. They may well be the right thing to do, but they aren't entitlements.
I definitely agree with you about entitlements and even though it's the right thing to do it's not an entitlement.
I don't necessarily agree with calling it "charity", and this is definitely splitting hairs because we seem to be on the same side here, but "charity" implies that the funders (taxpayers) did so willingly and taxes aren't a choice.
Maybe "government mandated charity" would be a better term.
We need a new term. I'm good with "government assistance" I think "being on the dole" is unnecessarily pejorative if the program is in fact temporary. OTOH, if multiple generations are continuously receiving "temporary" "government assistance" There's a very real problem, and "what about the children" isn't the correct response.
Forced sterilization isn't the right solution, but at some point, we have to have a solution that resolves the conflict between serial bastardy and "temporary" programs.
I'm ok with extending the duration of "temporary assistance" being contingent on accepting voluntary surgical NON-RADICAL/theoretically reversible sterilization.3 -
jhildebrandt73 wrote: »The government is trying to do what it can to control the child obesity epidemic. It is obvious that parents are failing to make smart decisions so micro management is the only way. Freedom is a fine thing, but without responsibility it is a detriment.
Things are more complex than just 'parents are failing'. When you have a government that looks the other way when these mega corporations put everything including poison to preserve the shelf life of products and make it so hard for small farmers to compete it costs you an arm and a leg to eat healthy then we shouldnt just pin this on parents. Capitalism ensures profits will be above any health concerns, point blank. Whatever makes the food and drug industry make more money, even if it means more cancer, more diabetes and more obesity, then that is what will happen.
When are shoppers responsible?
Sure, markets are full of things that are bad for you. I've eaten them, others have eaten them, and there are many who are here trying to lose the weight and/or undo the damage.
But I don't blame Hostess or Häagen-Dazs for having been 60 pounds overweight. They didn't hold a gun to my head and say you must eat this. I did it. Multiple college degrees, engineering even, so I could do the basic math needed to calculate caloric needs and consumption. But I was too LAZY to do it. It starts with personal responsibility. I know how to read and can read that a serving of Girl Scout Thin Mints is 4 cookies and that serving is 160 calories, mostly carbs and fat, and oh yeah, 1g of protein. But how many will eat half the box as "a serving?"
We live in an age where the whole of human knowledge is at the fingertips of literally every person in the Western world. There is NO excuse for not knowing what we should and shouldn't eat on a regular basis.
Why do food manufacturers and grocers sell these foods? Because people buy them.
You can tell people to buy real food, from the perimeter of the market and use sparingly the processed items in the center aisles of the stores. But you'll see shopping carts full of cereals, cakes, and no so many fruits, veggies, nuts, fresh meats, fish and dairy.
They will have fruit juice instead of eating fruit.
It's not like apples and oranges and grapes are not in the stores. It's not like there is no fresh spinach or asparagus or green beans in the produce section.
Or even frozen. I keep frozen, cut up peppers in my freezer because they are an easy addition to a morning omelette. But I'll see someone else grabbing a box of frozen waffles to pop in the toaster.
So when do we hold people responsible for their choices?
I keep seeing posts blaming the companies. But it's not like the knowledge isn't out there. When do we start holding people responsible for the choices they make?
I think people would have much less heartburn about how people use assistance if we stopped blaming everyone else for the consequences of personal choice.
It just seems like, and maybe it's the old man "get off my lawn" in me coming out, but it seems like people are less responsible for their choices and we want to blame others. If I'm fat, it's not because I eat crap and don't exercise, it's because of the food industry. If I'm out of work, it's not because I dropped out of school and now I can't find a job, it's the evil corporations. If I don't have any retirement funds, it's not because I bought a new car, boat, motorcycle, world vacations every year instead of saving for retirement, it's those evil Wall Street types who took my money.
And so on....
I personally find it hard to keep coming up with the compassion to help people when there seems to be little or no personal responsibility.7 -
nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I think I've made this observation upthread, but if a business doesn't pay people enough, and they need state support, then that's essentially a subsidy to the business owner. Is it appropriate that the state keeps businesses afloat?4 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I think I've made this observation upthread, but if a business doesn't pay people enough, and they need state support, then that's essentially a subsidy to the business owner. Is it appropriate that the state keeps businesses afloat?
How do you determine whether the fact that a person isn't meeting their subsistence needs is the responsibility of their poor choices or not?
A job that's sufficient to provide for the needs of a college student attending classes will not pay enough to sustain the head of household in a family of 4 or 6 or even 2 or 3.1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I think I've made this observation upthread, but if a business doesn't pay people enough, and they need state support, then that's essentially a subsidy to the business owner. Is it appropriate that the state keeps businesses afloat?
that business should be taxed appropriately to cover the money's taken from the state and then some...for using state money and resources to keep their business afloat. . imo
2
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
- 426 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