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
Options
Replies
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »We have our politicians to thank, I am sure, for the loss of so many good jobs in the US. People try to blame the working class (again) for wanting "cheap products" and giving rise to Walmarts taking over the nation and China imports replacing American made goods (jobs) but the real reason is the stockholders of corporations want more profits - higher profits come by cutting costs which comes from cheap labor overseas.
Given that the majority of shareholders are pension funds you'll find that it's still people. I appreciate that there is a perception that shareholders are already rich individuals, but the reality is that it's the expectation of both low costs now, and decent incomes in the future that are the issue here.
Whilst I'm not in the US, about 60% of my company is owned by institutional investors. We've also got a customer base that's driven by lower costs squeezing at the other end, which does make for some challenging times.
I'd also make the observation that most buyers are driven by one or two of three things; time, cost and quality. You can't have all three, but you could get two of them. Are you really sure that organic production is giving you what you want?
Well then those people should insist that the corporate hot shots not have such gigantic salaries hmmm? There is a disconnect somewhere - people are getting squeezed and it's not CEO's, and most of the people MOST HURT by this don't even have money for their own homes let alone money to buy stocks.
This is like an obese person looking at a thin person with envy.
A CEO salary has nothing to do with the fact that poor people exist. There certainly is a disconnect. A fundamental lack of knowledge of economics.
No it is not like that at all. If costs need to be cut why not cut outrageous salaries rather than take away jobs from US workers and then get all pissy when out of work people need food stamps...
...because CEO salaries have absolutely nothing to do with food stamps or taking away jobs.
Business follow favorable markets. If you create an environment that is unfavorable to business (e.g. high corporate taxation) many businesses will leave to areas more favorable to success.
I was talking about cutting costs to increase profits - cut costs from CEO salaries rather than take jobs away from people.
Take any executive salary and evenly distribute this among the workers. Fairly simple exercise that results in negligible increase in worker's salary.
Of course you could try being in charge and leading by example. Your business model of deliberate inefficiency does not bode well.2 -
Take any executive salary and evenly distribute this among the workers. Fairly simple exercise that results in negligible increase in worker's salary.
The company I work for has a CEO who is pretty well remunerated. I've just worked out that if we took his entire salary, and didn't pay him at all this year, I'd be the sum total of £0.40 better off per month, about 30 cents.5 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Take any executive salary and evenly distribute this among the workers. Fairly simple exercise that results in negligible increase in worker's salary.
The company I work for has a CEO who is pretty well remunerated. I've just worked out that if we took his entire salary, and didn't pay him at all this year, I'd be the sum total of £0.40 better off per month, about 30 cents.
I did the same for my last CEO and this amounted to 1USD/month.
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing I despise more than overcompensation for pitiful performance, but I'm not about to let this impact my joy. I'm fairly certain that there are people that make less than me who could make the same argument and feel wholly justified in playing Sheriff of Nottingham while pretending to be Robin Hood.
It's an envy/outrage Ponzi scheme.1 -
BecomingBane wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
What else is next for the poor people?
The government would probably like it if they got jobs (better jobs) and stopped needing welfare. But as it's their dime it's their rules so they can (and will) put as many caveats on it as they want.
Do you realize that a lot of people work and still need assistance? But yes in a perfect world everyone would have jobs and there would be no poor people.
heres the thing....when i was a kid and my parents didnt have money. they didnt buy soda and junk, also my mom didnt drink alcohol, though they enjoyed it. why? because they needed the money to put healthy groceries in their childrens bellies. if people work and still dont make ends meet, then maybe they hould spend their own money on junk, and cigarettes and whatever else.
second. its not the governments money they are giving away, but the taxpayers income tax money. tell you what...it burns pretty bad when you are busting your *kitten* in the grocery store and people come in and order whole ribeyes with their food stamps....not even to mention the huge bags of chips and cookies.
AMERICAN grown foods....fine...everyone should be entitled. you want oreos and soda/ get a damn job
Also when they arrive in a taxi to stand outside the grocery store with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth ($10 a pack now?) to stand by the front door and try and sell the food stamps for cash to the people going inside. Which is why they switched to the plastic EBT card so that couldn't be done anymore.
Thanks for bringing back the point that giveaways in the U.S. are funded exclusively by the working American taxpayer, many millions of whom are in the working class who barely scrape by and just miss the eligibility requirements for any assistance themselves if they can't meet their basic needs at some point.
And exploitation of what we call the welfare system, in its various categories, isn't occasional or rare. It's rampant.
But one would have to live and work shoulder to shoulder with recipients of subsidies and freebees to understand what that's actually like.
So yeah EBT, WIC, Section 8, public housing, free post-secondary educations which includes full tuition, free books, stipends and all fees covered, free cell phones, subsidized gas and electric payments, free childcare, and Medicaid - once all this is covered by the working taxpayer, and it is, one would have to wonder what being "poor" actually means in the U.S.
To understand how fed up and furious the working class (particularly the lower end of it) is, one would have to walk in their shoes. And we all know that isn't going to happen.
The working class literally wait hand and foot while at their service jobs on these welfare recipients. Then they go home to their $1000 a month one bedroom apartments where they have to pay market rent and get kept up all night by the Section 8ers on all sides of them who live in the same building for free and make life hell for everyone else. Parties, loud music, slamming the doors at all hours, loud arguments spilling into the hallway, throwing trash everywhere and welcoming 10 other family members to live in the unit for free too - yep. Pretty standard practice in these scenarios.
Where in the world is this free post secondary education that is completely covered by the US taxpayer. This is not a thing I've ever heard of and you state that it exists. One of the biggest issues in the US is that post secondary education is declining due to rising costs, lower funding, fewer grants, etc. Not to mention the risk of predatory lenders and the growing student debt balloon.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/12/01/one-family-scholars-college-low-income-massachusetts-parents/
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/05/30/free-college-tuition-the-boston-bridge/
http://www.mass.edu/osfa/home/home.asp
So, one school with a scholorship program available only to people living in one city, now counts as free post secondary education for every tax payer. Good to know the 40k a semester I spent was so stupid of me when I could have just moved to Boston. *eye roll*
*edited to correct
... where on earth did you go to school that cost 40K a semester? Stanford, Princeton and Harvard cost about 40K a YEAR for out of state tuition.0 -
jseams1234 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
What else is next for the poor people?
The government would probably like it if they got jobs (better jobs) and stopped needing welfare. But as it's their dime it's their rules so they can (and will) put as many caveats on it as they want.
Do you realize that a lot of people work and still need assistance? But yes in a perfect world everyone would have jobs and there would be no poor people.
heres the thing....when i was a kid and my parents didnt have money. they didnt buy soda and junk, also my mom didnt drink alcohol, though they enjoyed it. why? because they needed the money to put healthy groceries in their childrens bellies. if people work and still dont make ends meet, then maybe they hould spend their own money on junk, and cigarettes and whatever else.
second. its not the governments money they are giving away, but the taxpayers income tax money. tell you what...it burns pretty bad when you are busting your *kitten* in the grocery store and people come in and order whole ribeyes with their food stamps....not even to mention the huge bags of chips and cookies.
AMERICAN grown foods....fine...everyone should be entitled. you want oreos and soda/ get a damn job
Also when they arrive in a taxi to stand outside the grocery store with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth ($10 a pack now?) to stand by the front door and try and sell the food stamps for cash to the people going inside. Which is why they switched to the plastic EBT card so that couldn't be done anymore.
Thanks for bringing back the point that giveaways in the U.S. are funded exclusively by the working American taxpayer, many millions of whom are in the working class who barely scrape by and just miss the eligibility requirements for any assistance themselves if they can't meet their basic needs at some point.
And exploitation of what we call the welfare system, in its various categories, isn't occasional or rare. It's rampant.
But one would have to live and work shoulder to shoulder with recipients of subsidies and freebees to understand what that's actually like.
So yeah EBT, WIC, Section 8, public housing, free post-secondary educations which includes full tuition, free books, stipends and all fees covered, free cell phones, subsidized gas and electric payments, free childcare, and Medicaid - once all this is covered by the working taxpayer, and it is, one would have to wonder what being "poor" actually means in the U.S.
To understand how fed up and furious the working class (particularly the lower end of it) is, one would have to walk in their shoes. And we all know that isn't going to happen.
The working class literally wait hand and foot while at their service jobs on these welfare recipients. Then they go home to their $1000 a month one bedroom apartments where they have to pay market rent and get kept up all night by the Section 8ers on all sides of them who live in the same building for free and make life hell for everyone else. Parties, loud music, slamming the doors at all hours, loud arguments spilling into the hallway, throwing trash everywhere and welcoming 10 other family members to live in the unit for free too - yep. Pretty standard practice in these scenarios.
Where in the world is this free post secondary education that is completely covered by the US taxpayer. This is not a thing I've ever heard of and you state that it exists. One of the biggest issues in the US is that post secondary education is declining due to rising costs, lower funding, fewer grants, etc. Not to mention the risk of predatory lenders and the growing student debt balloon.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/12/01/one-family-scholars-college-low-income-massachusetts-parents/
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/05/30/free-college-tuition-the-boston-bridge/
http://www.mass.edu/osfa/home/home.asp
So, one school with a scholorship program available only to people living in one city, now counts as free post secondary education for every tax payer. Good to know the 40k a semester I spent was so stupid of me when I could have just moved to Boston. *eye roll*
*edited to correct
... where on earth did you go to school that cost 40K a semester? Stanford, Princeton and Harvard cost about 40K a YEAR for out of state tuition.
Private liberal arts university.0 -
jseams1234 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
What else is next for the poor people?
The government would probably like it if they got jobs (better jobs) and stopped needing welfare. But as it's their dime it's their rules so they can (and will) put as many caveats on it as they want.
Do you realize that a lot of people work and still need assistance? But yes in a perfect world everyone would have jobs and there would be no poor people.
heres the thing....when i was a kid and my parents didnt have money. they didnt buy soda and junk, also my mom didnt drink alcohol, though they enjoyed it. why? because they needed the money to put healthy groceries in their childrens bellies. if people work and still dont make ends meet, then maybe they hould spend their own money on junk, and cigarettes and whatever else.
second. its not the governments money they are giving away, but the taxpayers income tax money. tell you what...it burns pretty bad when you are busting your *kitten* in the grocery store and people come in and order whole ribeyes with their food stamps....not even to mention the huge bags of chips and cookies.
AMERICAN grown foods....fine...everyone should be entitled. you want oreos and soda/ get a damn job
Also when they arrive in a taxi to stand outside the grocery store with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth ($10 a pack now?) to stand by the front door and try and sell the food stamps for cash to the people going inside. Which is why they switched to the plastic EBT card so that couldn't be done anymore.
Thanks for bringing back the point that giveaways in the U.S. are funded exclusively by the working American taxpayer, many millions of whom are in the working class who barely scrape by and just miss the eligibility requirements for any assistance themselves if they can't meet their basic needs at some point.
And exploitation of what we call the welfare system, in its various categories, isn't occasional or rare. It's rampant.
But one would have to live and work shoulder to shoulder with recipients of subsidies and freebees to understand what that's actually like.
So yeah EBT, WIC, Section 8, public housing, free post-secondary educations which includes full tuition, free books, stipends and all fees covered, free cell phones, subsidized gas and electric payments, free childcare, and Medicaid - once all this is covered by the working taxpayer, and it is, one would have to wonder what being "poor" actually means in the U.S.
To understand how fed up and furious the working class (particularly the lower end of it) is, one would have to walk in their shoes. And we all know that isn't going to happen.
The working class literally wait hand and foot while at their service jobs on these welfare recipients. Then they go home to their $1000 a month one bedroom apartments where they have to pay market rent and get kept up all night by the Section 8ers on all sides of them who live in the same building for free and make life hell for everyone else. Parties, loud music, slamming the doors at all hours, loud arguments spilling into the hallway, throwing trash everywhere and welcoming 10 other family members to live in the unit for free too - yep. Pretty standard practice in these scenarios.
Where in the world is this free post secondary education that is completely covered by the US taxpayer. This is not a thing I've ever heard of and you state that it exists. One of the biggest issues in the US is that post secondary education is declining due to rising costs, lower funding, fewer grants, etc. Not to mention the risk of predatory lenders and the growing student debt balloon.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/12/01/one-family-scholars-college-low-income-massachusetts-parents/
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/05/30/free-college-tuition-the-boston-bridge/
http://www.mass.edu/osfa/home/home.asp
So, one school with a scholorship program available only to people living in one city, now counts as free post secondary education for every tax payer. Good to know the 40k a semester I spent was so stupid of me when I could have just moved to Boston. *eye roll*
*edited to correct
... where on earth did you go to school that cost 40K a semester? Stanford, Princeton and Harvard cost about 40K a YEAR for out of state tuition.
It never fails to surprise me what people are willing to pay to go to some private colleges when the state university has a better reputation.2 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Take any executive salary and evenly distribute this among the workers. Fairly simple exercise that results in negligible increase in worker's salary.
The company I work for has a CEO who is pretty well remunerated. I've just worked out that if we took his entire salary, and didn't pay him at all this year, I'd be the sum total of £0.40 better off per month, about 30 cents.
Even if you added on all the higher level executive salaries I doubt you'd get much further than £20 a month. I'm happy enough to sacrifice that amount of pay for the organisational structure and benefits that come with that.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
What else is next for the poor people?
The government would probably like it if they got jobs (better jobs) and stopped needing welfare. But as it's their dime it's their rules so they can (and will) put as many caveats on it as they want.
Do you realize that a lot of people work and still need assistance? But yes in a perfect world everyone would have jobs and there would be no poor people.
heres the thing....when i was a kid and my parents didnt have money. they didnt buy soda and junk, also my mom didnt drink alcohol, though they enjoyed it. why? because they needed the money to put healthy groceries in their childrens bellies. if people work and still dont make ends meet, then maybe they hould spend their own money on junk, and cigarettes and whatever else.
second. its not the governments money they are giving away, but the taxpayers income tax money. tell you what...it burns pretty bad when you are busting your *kitten* in the grocery store and people come in and order whole ribeyes with their food stamps....not even to mention the huge bags of chips and cookies.
AMERICAN grown foods....fine...everyone should be entitled. you want oreos and soda/ get a damn job
Also when they arrive in a taxi to stand outside the grocery store with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth ($10 a pack now?) to stand by the front door and try and sell the food stamps for cash to the people going inside. Which is why they switched to the plastic EBT card so that couldn't be done anymore.
Thanks for bringing back the point that giveaways in the U.S. are funded exclusively by the working American taxpayer, many millions of whom are in the working class who barely scrape by and just miss the eligibility requirements for any assistance themselves if they can't meet their basic needs at some point.
And exploitation of what we call the welfare system, in its various categories, isn't occasional or rare. It's rampant.
But one would have to live and work shoulder to shoulder with recipients of subsidies and freebees to understand what that's actually like.
So yeah EBT, WIC, Section 8, public housing, free post-secondary educations which includes full tuition, free books, stipends and all fees covered, free cell phones, subsidized gas and electric payments, free childcare, and Medicaid - once all this is covered by the working taxpayer, and it is, one would have to wonder what being "poor" actually means in the U.S.
To understand how fed up and furious the working class (particularly the lower end of it) is, one would have to walk in their shoes. And we all know that isn't going to happen.
The working class literally wait hand and foot while at their service jobs on these welfare recipients. Then they go home to their $1000 a month one bedroom apartments where they have to pay market rent and get kept up all night by the Section 8ers on all sides of them who live in the same building for free and make life hell for everyone else. Parties, loud music, slamming the doors at all hours, loud arguments spilling into the hallway, throwing trash everywhere and welcoming 10 other family members to live in the unit for free too - yep. Pretty standard practice in these scenarios.
Where in the world is this free post secondary education that is completely covered by the US taxpayer. This is not a thing I've ever heard of and you state that it exists. One of the biggest issues in the US is that post secondary education is declining due to rising costs, lower funding, fewer grants, etc. Not to mention the risk of predatory lenders and the growing student debt balloon.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/12/01/one-family-scholars-college-low-income-massachusetts-parents/
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/05/30/free-college-tuition-the-boston-bridge/
http://www.mass.edu/osfa/home/home.asp
So, one school with a scholorship program available only to people living in one city, now counts as free post secondary education for every tax payer. Good to know the 40k a semester I spent was so stupid of me when I could have just moved to Boston. *eye roll*
*edited to correct
... where on earth did you go to school that cost 40K a semester? Stanford, Princeton and Harvard cost about 40K a YEAR for out of state tuition.
Private liberal arts university.
I still don't get it - the most expensive private colleges I can find listed are still (lol) only about 55-60K a year for tuition, not a semester. Also curious, what kind of degree did you end up getting from this liberal arts university that cost 640K for a four year degree? ... or are the semesters in a this university a year long... and are we talking USD?0 -
jseams1234 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
What else is next for the poor people?
The government would probably like it if they got jobs (better jobs) and stopped needing welfare. But as it's their dime it's their rules so they can (and will) put as many caveats on it as they want.
Do you realize that a lot of people work and still need assistance? But yes in a perfect world everyone would have jobs and there would be no poor people.
heres the thing....when i was a kid and my parents didnt have money. they didnt buy soda and junk, also my mom didnt drink alcohol, though they enjoyed it. why? because they needed the money to put healthy groceries in their childrens bellies. if people work and still dont make ends meet, then maybe they hould spend their own money on junk, and cigarettes and whatever else.
second. its not the governments money they are giving away, but the taxpayers income tax money. tell you what...it burns pretty bad when you are busting your *kitten* in the grocery store and people come in and order whole ribeyes with their food stamps....not even to mention the huge bags of chips and cookies.
AMERICAN grown foods....fine...everyone should be entitled. you want oreos and soda/ get a damn job
Also when they arrive in a taxi to stand outside the grocery store with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth ($10 a pack now?) to stand by the front door and try and sell the food stamps for cash to the people going inside. Which is why they switched to the plastic EBT card so that couldn't be done anymore.
Thanks for bringing back the point that giveaways in the U.S. are funded exclusively by the working American taxpayer, many millions of whom are in the working class who barely scrape by and just miss the eligibility requirements for any assistance themselves if they can't meet their basic needs at some point.
And exploitation of what we call the welfare system, in its various categories, isn't occasional or rare. It's rampant.
But one would have to live and work shoulder to shoulder with recipients of subsidies and freebees to understand what that's actually like.
So yeah EBT, WIC, Section 8, public housing, free post-secondary educations which includes full tuition, free books, stipends and all fees covered, free cell phones, subsidized gas and electric payments, free childcare, and Medicaid - once all this is covered by the working taxpayer, and it is, one would have to wonder what being "poor" actually means in the U.S.
To understand how fed up and furious the working class (particularly the lower end of it) is, one would have to walk in their shoes. And we all know that isn't going to happen.
The working class literally wait hand and foot while at their service jobs on these welfare recipients. Then they go home to their $1000 a month one bedroom apartments where they have to pay market rent and get kept up all night by the Section 8ers on all sides of them who live in the same building for free and make life hell for everyone else. Parties, loud music, slamming the doors at all hours, loud arguments spilling into the hallway, throwing trash everywhere and welcoming 10 other family members to live in the unit for free too - yep. Pretty standard practice in these scenarios.
Where in the world is this free post secondary education that is completely covered by the US taxpayer. This is not a thing I've ever heard of and you state that it exists. One of the biggest issues in the US is that post secondary education is declining due to rising costs, lower funding, fewer grants, etc. Not to mention the risk of predatory lenders and the growing student debt balloon.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/12/01/one-family-scholars-college-low-income-massachusetts-parents/
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/05/30/free-college-tuition-the-boston-bridge/
http://www.mass.edu/osfa/home/home.asp
So, one school with a scholorship program available only to people living in one city, now counts as free post secondary education for every tax payer. Good to know the 40k a semester I spent was so stupid of me when I could have just moved to Boston. *eye roll*
*edited to correct
... where on earth did you go to school that cost 40K a semester? Stanford, Princeton and Harvard cost about 40K a YEAR for out of state tuition.
Private liberal arts university.
I still don't get it - the most expensive private colleges I can find listed are still (lol) only about 55-60K a year for tuition, not a semester. Also curious, what kind of degree did you end up getting from this liberal arts university that cost 640K for a four year degree? ... or are the semesters in a this university a year long... and are we talking USD?
I actually ran two at once. One for Religious studies with a focus on Eastern World Religions and Translations of primary source materials, and Music performance with jazz as a focus.1 -
This never works, you can simply go to stores that just ring up grocery and don't itemize or ring up items by a barcode. But that isn't the problem WHY THE HELL is soda and juice cheaper than water? Poor people by what's cheap. Everything on the outside isles of the grocery store are far more expensive than what's on the inside isles plus they don't last as long. The average family household make 50k a year is considered middle-class poor so food stamps maybe needed to supplement WITHOUT restrictions.1
-
BecomingBane wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
What else is next for the poor people?
The government would probably like it if they got jobs (better jobs) and stopped needing welfare. But as it's their dime it's their rules so they can (and will) put as many caveats on it as they want.
Do you realize that a lot of people work and still need assistance? But yes in a perfect world everyone would have jobs and there would be no poor people.
heres the thing....when i was a kid and my parents didnt have money. they didnt buy soda and junk, also my mom didnt drink alcohol, though they enjoyed it. why? because they needed the money to put healthy groceries in their childrens bellies. if people work and still dont make ends meet, then maybe they hould spend their own money on junk, and cigarettes and whatever else.
second. its not the governments money they are giving away, but the taxpayers income tax money. tell you what...it burns pretty bad when you are busting your *kitten* in the grocery store and people come in and order whole ribeyes with their food stamps....not even to mention the huge bags of chips and cookies.
AMERICAN grown foods....fine...everyone should be entitled. you want oreos and soda/ get a damn job
Also when they arrive in a taxi to stand outside the grocery store with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth ($10 a pack now?) to stand by the front door and try and sell the food stamps for cash to the people going inside. Which is why they switched to the plastic EBT card so that couldn't be done anymore.
Thanks for bringing back the point that giveaways in the U.S. are funded exclusively by the working American taxpayer, many millions of whom are in the working class who barely scrape by and just miss the eligibility requirements for any assistance themselves if they can't meet their basic needs at some point.
And exploitation of what we call the welfare system, in its various categories, isn't occasional or rare. It's rampant.
But one would have to live and work shoulder to shoulder with recipients of subsidies and freebees to understand what that's actually like.
So yeah EBT, WIC, Section 8, public housing, free post-secondary educations which includes full tuition, free books, stipends and all fees covered, free cell phones, subsidized gas and electric payments, free childcare, and Medicaid - once all this is covered by the working taxpayer, and it is, one would have to wonder what being "poor" actually means in the U.S.
To understand how fed up and furious the working class (particularly the lower end of it) is, one would have to walk in their shoes. And we all know that isn't going to happen.
The working class literally wait hand and foot while at their service jobs on these welfare recipients. Then they go home to their $1000 a month one bedroom apartments where they have to pay market rent and get kept up all night by the Section 8ers on all sides of them who live in the same building for free and make life hell for everyone else. Parties, loud music, slamming the doors at all hours, loud arguments spilling into the hallway, throwing trash everywhere and welcoming 10 other family members to live in the unit for free too - yep. Pretty standard practice in these scenarios.
Where in the world is this free post secondary education that is completely covered by the US taxpayer. This is not a thing I've ever heard of and you state that it exists. One of the biggest issues in the US is that post secondary education is declining due to rising costs, lower funding, fewer grants, etc. Not to mention the risk of predatory lenders and the growing student debt balloon.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/12/01/one-family-scholars-college-low-income-massachusetts-parents/
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/05/30/free-college-tuition-the-boston-bridge/
http://www.mass.edu/osfa/home/home.asp
So, one school with a scholorship program available only to people living in one city, now counts as free post secondary education for every tax payer. Good to know the 40k a semester I spent was so stupid of me when I could have just moved to Boston. *eye roll*
*edited to correct
... where on earth did you go to school that cost 40K a semester? Stanford, Princeton and Harvard cost about 40K a YEAR for out of state tuition.
Private liberal arts university.
I still don't get it - the most expensive private colleges I can find listed are still (lol) only about 55-60K a year for tuition, not a semester. Also curious, what kind of degree did you end up getting from this liberal arts university that cost 640K for a four year degree? ... or are the semesters in a this university a year long... and are we talking USD?
I actually ran two at once. One for Religious studies with a focus on Eastern World Religions and Translations of primary source materials, and Music performance with jazz as a focus.
Dude. I yield to no one in the frivolity and obscurity of my degrees, but you (presumably) paid $320 K and didn't cover it with scholarships? How does that even work economically? Like, were you "spending" it from a trust fund?4 -
No... scholarships and student loans, like the vast majority of other Americans. I'm actually still paying for it. Nothing wrong with that, but hey, can we stop derailing the thread? My degrees and my personal finances were not the topics of discussion. I merely raised the point that there is only one university in one city in the US that provides free education and only to residents of that city.
The fact of the matter is that there is not a free secondary education available to most americans, university costs are only going up, interest rates on loans are increasing, etc. I was countering a point, not making any kind of brag. I will most likely be paying for this for years to come simply because no such "free secondary education paid for by taxes" actually exists for Americans to utilize.
If, for some reason you are that concerned with my education, you're welcome to PM me.0 -
Really. You can make that decision for other people? I guess it's lucky we have you to make decisions for everyone.
While we're at it, coffee and tea also have no nutritional value. Why don't we just ban it for everyone. Would you feel good about that? BTW, we are all taxpayers, even people on EBT, many who are actually working at jobs still are liable to taxes, just like everyone else. A lot of disabled veterans and other people are also on EBT, and let's not forget the elderly people living on fixed incomes.
Personally, I have little use for sodas, but I would not prohibit them for others, if that's what they choose to spend their grocery money on. If I understand the system correctly, you get X amount of credit toward approved food item per month. If you blow it all on candy, chips, popcorn, etc..., well, that's your business. You will just be hungry for the rest of the month. I also think EBT should cover necessities like toilet paper, soap, toothpaste, deodorant, aspirin, etc... I don't know why it doesn't. These things are just as important to your health as eating is.
Just my opinion. I have a problem with people assuming the authority to make decisions for others, unless it's done through due process. I believe everyone has the right to go to Hell in their own hand-basket, if they choose to do so. You reap what you sow, most of the time.tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.5 -
I also think EBT should cover necessities like toilet paper, soap, toothpaste, deodorant, aspirin, etc... I don't know why it doesn't. These things are just as important to your health as eating is.tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
I have actually run into that exact situation at the mission where I volunteer once a week. We have a food pantry every other week and a clothing distribution every other week. One day a lady came in who is a regular client of the mission asking us if we had a roll of toilet paper because she was completely out and had no money until her disability check cleared in a few days. This woman is in her 60s and is incontinent and has all kinds of health issues. That broke my heart but there are people in the United States who have to ask for a gift of toilet paper. This woman is not a leech on the system she has serious health issues. And is reduced to begging for toilet paper.3 -
I also think EBT should cover necessities like toilet paper, soap, toothpaste, deodorant, aspirin, etc... I don't know why it doesn't. These things are just as important to your health as eating is.tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
I have actually run into that exact situation at the mission where I volunteer once a week. We have a food pantry every other week and a clothing distribution every other week. One day a lady came in who is a regular client of the mission asking us if we had a roll of toilet paper because she was completely out and had no money until her disability check cleared in a few days. This woman is in her 60s and is incontinent and has all kinds of health issues. That broke my heart but there are people in the United States who have to ask for a gift of toilet paper. This woman is not a leech on the system she has serious health issues. And is reduced to begging for toilet paper.
It doesn't cover toilet paper? That sucks. I suppose though, here in Australia pads and tampons attract "luxury tax". Note that condoms don't, though.0 -
Soul_Radiation wrote: »I think if we don't want people to eat unhealthy foods, it might make more sense to stop subsidizing corn in the way that we do...which is used to produce a lot of junk food. The coke should probably be more expensive, but if that is what people want to spend the food stamps on...then fine.
Corn (and other) subsidies probably affect the cost of meat (which is very cheap in the US) more than junk food, as the majority of the budget for junk food is on things like advertising. (I note that what you said is not inconsistent with this, but I wanted to point it out explicitly.)
I don't care if meat prices go up -- in fact, I think subsidies create a distortion in the market and I am against them. But I do think it's important in discussing this to note that it could affect prices more broadly.
This article argues that there wouldn't really be a significant affect on prices anyway (I am not so sure, as I think one reason the amount of HFCS in foods has increased so much is that it's dirt cheap), and suggests instead:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2016/07/are-corn-subsidies-making-us-fat-/there’s a parallel field of policy dedicated to the idea of encouraging certain purchases by lowering prices. Paying farmers can be seen as subsidizing supply, while directly reducing consumer price is more like subsidizing demand. And that, says Just, is “much more effective…in terms of changing what people eat.”
What’s most effective of all, suggests research from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is a variation on coupons—which policymakers have taken to calling “incentives”—rather than lower prices in general. A 2010 study there found that while lower prices could boost sales by 5 or 6 percent, coupons could boost sales by as much as 11 percent. Additional research suggested that a 10-percent subsidy would boost consumption by up to about 5 percent. Researchers suggested that this was because coupons not only dropped the price, but functioned as advertisement and information, too, reminding shopper to pick up fruits and vegetables.
More recently, Wilde and colleagues studied whether a program offering a 30 percent rebate for produce bought with SNAP benefits would change what people ate. And it did: People who got the rebate increased their fruit and vegetable consumption by about 25 percent, says Wilde. The study was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Notably for the modern, digital era, the rebate was automatically provided when people paid with their SNAP card; none of the 7,500 households that got the rebate had to clip coupons to get it.
“It wasn’t large enough to close the gap between where people are and where they are recommended to be,” says Wilde; people still fell short of their recommended daily allowance for produce. That’s a problem for most Americans: 87 percent of adults fail to eat their RDA of vegetables. Indeed, policymakers looking to shift health population wide might need to offer coupons for all. While wealthy American may eat better than the poor, that’s a kind of splitting hairs, says Wilde. “The really notable thing about the United States,” he says, “is that nobody has a very healthy diet.”1 -
Really. You can make that decision for other people? I guess it's lucky we have you to make decisions for everyone.
While we're at it, coffee and tea also have no nutritional value. Why don't we just ban it for everyone. Would you feel good about that? BTW, we are all taxpayers, even people on EBT, many who are actually working at jobs still are liable to taxes, just like everyone else. A lot of disabled veterans and other people are also on EBT, and let's not forget the elderly people living on fixed incomes.
Personally, I have little use for sodas, but I would not prohibit them for others, if that's what they choose to spend their grocery money on. If I understand the system correctly, you get X amount of credit toward approved food item per month. If you blow it all on candy, chips, popcorn, etc..., well, that's your business. You will just be hungry for the rest of the month. I also think EBT should cover necessities like toilet paper, soap, toothpaste, deodorant, aspirin, etc... I don't know why it doesn't. These things are just as important to your health as eating is.
Just my opinion. I have a problem with people assuming the authority to make decisions for others, unless it's done through due process. I believe everyone has the right to go to Hell in their own hand-basket, if they choose to do so. You reap what you sow, most of the time.tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
Few if any on SNAP are paying federal income taxes which fund the program2 -
Most states I've lived or worked in require one to either have a job or be actively applying for jobs regularly and verifiably before they will allow SNAP benefits.1
-
Chiming in here as a SNAP recipient. I work full time and have considtently been employed for my entire adult life the only lapse was while on bedrest during a high risk pregnancy and recovery time after delivery which makes sense. People can buy anything they want with their card as long as its edible. Honestly, it bothers me that the budget we get doesnt account for how we should be eating but that doesnt mean its impossible to work with. Dry beans and lentils are way cheaper than canned, shopping the weekly sales gives you more bang for your buck, you dont need to buy fancy boneless chicken breasts you can use bone in pieces and still have a delicious healthy meal. Furthermore, the NYC green market has a token incentive which plays off the aforementioned study. Customers on SNAP can purchase tokens with their card and receieve bonus tokens at certain amounts (ex - if i buy 10 dollars in tokens i get 13 to spend so my nice bunch of kale is totally free) also, i take advantage of my local freegan food share. This is something that isnt in all communities but if youre bold enough and your area isnt crazy dangerous going dumpster diving could be fun. I personally have never gone because the cost of hiring a babysitter makes it not worth it for me but everyones situation is different2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions