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
-
This content has been removed.
-
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »I like the idea of ruling out complete crap from being purchased. It is not a right to buy junk food, it is a choice, and a luxury one at that, since soda and energy drinks have zero nutrition. The SNAP program was designed to help people in need eat healthier and to assist in food cost. If you don't want to be regulated, stay off goverment assistance programs. I was able to buy plenty of healthy foods the 9 months I was on SNAP.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 1. Soda...specifically Sprite....has saved my life on many occasions when my glucose level plummeted...I'd call that nutritious for the given situation 2. The program was NOT designed to help people in need eat healthier. It WAS designed, however, to help people "in need"...however you define that....gain assistance in food cost. The individuals who make the rules decided that a vast major of users of this program need to be educated on nutrition and thus came all the stipulations. A recent example...used to be able to get 2%,1% and skim milk. Now only 1% and skim is allowed.
Now the bolded comment you made above....RUDE RUDE RUDE and again RUDE! Your assumption is that everyone on the program wants to be on the program---classified ignorance. Oh, and kudos for your 9 month healthy shopping spree but for many people this assistance program is for a lifetime.
IF your "temporary need" is "for a lifetime"... it's not the program that has failed. it's you.
I see now why you only have 6 friends on here. Smh. You know, a closed mind gets you know where in life.
Members have the option to reject friends requests.
I reject everyone who random requests me with no details. Which is a lot....if you want to be my friend tell me why
For some people, friend requests are a popularity contest. For some of us, it's a minimal IQ test.6 -
Am I the only person who thinks it odd to have any "friends" on here at all? I just don't get it, so I don't accept any. Why do I want friends on here? To look like I have a lot of friends? To message someone back and forth who I have never met? I'm not trying to be funny, I truly don't get it. I might have one "friend" on here. She's a real life friend. I don't even know if she is on my friend list. My list might be 0 friends, lol. I guess I'm just too old to understand "friending" people I don't actually know, whether it be on here, Facebook, or wherever. I hope people don't take it personally when I don't accept their friend request. I don't even know what accepting a friend request means. Am I obligated to maintain a messaging friendship? To like other people's posts? That's just way too much pressure. I have a hard enough time making time in my life for my actual real-life friends.
7 -
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »I like the idea of ruling out complete crap from being purchased. It is not a right to buy junk food, it is a choice, and a luxury one at that, since soda and energy drinks have zero nutrition. The SNAP program was designed to help people in need eat healthier and to assist in food cost. If you don't want to be regulated, stay off goverment assistance programs. I was able to buy plenty of healthy foods the 9 months I was on SNAP.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 1. Soda...specifically Sprite....has saved my life on many occasions when my glucose level plummeted...I'd call that nutritious for the given situation 2. The program was NOT designed to help people in need eat healthier. It WAS designed, however, to help people "in need"...however you define that....gain assistance in food cost. The individuals who make the rules decided that a vast major of users of this program need to be educated on nutrition and thus came all the stipulations. A recent example...used to be able to get 2%,1% and skim milk. Now only 1% and skim is allowed.
Now the bolded comment you made above....RUDE RUDE RUDE and again RUDE! Your assumption is that everyone on the program wants to be on the program---classified ignorance. Oh, and kudos for your 9 month healthy shopping spree but for many people this assistance program is for a lifetime.
IF your "temporary need" is "for a lifetime"... it's not the program that has failed. it's you.
I see now why you only have 6 friends on here. Smh. You know, a closed mind gets you know where in life.
Members have the option to reject friends requests.
I reject everyone who random requests me with no details. Which is a lot....if you want to be my friend tell me why
I automatically reject any requests from people who don't have profile pictures. I also reject all requests from guys.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »I like the idea of ruling out complete crap from being purchased. It is not a right to buy junk food, it is a choice, and a luxury one at that, since soda and energy drinks have zero nutrition. The SNAP program was designed to help people in need eat healthier and to assist in food cost. If you don't want to be regulated, stay off goverment assistance programs. I was able to buy plenty of healthy foods the 9 months I was on SNAP.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 1. Soda...specifically Sprite....has saved my life on many occasions when my glucose level plummeted...I'd call that nutritious for the given situation 2. The program was NOT designed to help people in need eat healthier. It WAS designed, however, to help people "in need"...however you define that....gain assistance in food cost. The individuals who make the rules decided that a vast major of users of this program need to be educated on nutrition and thus came all the stipulations. A recent example...used to be able to get 2%,1% and skim milk. Now only 1% and skim is allowed.
Now the bolded comment you made above....RUDE RUDE RUDE and again RUDE! Your assumption is that everyone on the program wants to be on the program---classified ignorance. Oh, and kudos for your 9 month healthy shopping spree but for many people this assistance program is for a lifetime.
IF your "temporary need" is "for a lifetime"... it's not the program that has failed. it's you.
I see now why you only have 6 friends on here. Smh. You know, a closed mind gets you know where in life.
Members have the option to reject friends requests.
I reject everyone who random requests me with no details. Which is a lot....if you want to be my friend tell me why
I automatically reject any requests from people who don't have profile pictures. I also reject all requests from guys.
Yeah...I've had some disturbing messages from men on here.....
Ha, yeah the messages we could share lol.
But, I do the auto reject because my husband and I guard our marriage very carefully, and it's a long standing 'rule' for both of us to not have online 'friends' of the opposite sex, (exception being family/relatives). We know 4 people personally, who's affairs started via fb, so that's made a pretty big impact on us. But yeah, the whole 'friend' thing doesn't mean a whole lot here-I don't even check my feed.2 -
US debt is at 20 trillion dollars. thats 13 zeroes after 2. so govt. spending is now being done by borrowing from the future generations. because of that, 1$ of additional debt is now causing a rise in GDP 1/3rd of what it used to 20 years back. there might be a time some decades down the line when new debt will cease to increase GDP.1
-
LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.5 -
US debt is at 20 trillion dollars. thats 13 zeroes after 2. so govt. spending is now being done by borrowing from the future generations. because of that, 1$ of additional debt is now causing a rise in GDP 1/3rd of what it used to 20 years back. there might be a time some decades down the line when new debt will cease to increase GDP.
http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2015/12/01/dont-sweat-the-debt-why-the-federal-budget-is-not-really-out-of-control/?utm_source=hootsuite
I am not an economic expert, but I think most layperson's discussions about "the national debt" are fraught with misunderstanding, inaccuracy, and alarmism. I thought this was a good overview.
As I wrote in an earlier post, spending for food stamps is minuscule compared to other areas of the budget.6 -
LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
10 -
LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
True. And going by some of the arguments in this thread... They chose to live in a part of the country that can get hit pretty hard by hurricanes. Which was a bad decision on their part so we should just give them all tents and cans of beans. I mean, you can't be choosy with government money when your bad decision caused your bad circumstances, am I right? They just need to move somewhere else and find work like the rest of us.13 -
LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
True. And going by some of the arguments in this thread... They chose to live in a part of the country that can get hit pretty hard by hurricanes. Which was a bad decision on their part so we should just give them all tents and cans of beans. I mean, you can't be choosy with government money when your bad decision caused your bad circumstances, am I right? They just need to move somewhere else and find work like the rest of us.
My city had a 1 in a 100 year flood a few years ago. Downtown was under water. The people who lived along the river were under water. I don't begrudge them some help. I do begrudge them help again if they continue to live there. The city offered to buy up their million dollar homes but many stayed. For those who stayed, it was with the understanding that the government will not be repairing their house/mansions next time.
I agree with some restrictions on governement assistance. Some. Restricting "empty calories" seems fair. We are pretty broke right now due to the oil industry slow down up here in Canada. I don't buy pop and junk as much. I buy no-name brand foods and sale items. I skip vacations. We do not eat out. A treat is buying coffee or going to a matinee re-release cheap movie with a water bottle. We shop second hand. Restricting pop on food stamps does not seem unreasonable.
BTW, up here there is no such thing as food stamps. Very few schools have any sort of food program - a small number offer a bit of extra breakfast. There are food banks through donated foods but that's it. And food is more expensive up here by quite a lot.
We do have employment insurance for those who are laid off but that is not for part time or contract workers. We'e paid into it for decades but the oil industry mainly hires on contract so we've never been able to collect. Would've been helpful even if I could only spend it on certain items.1 -
LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.14 -
janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
In the United States, Most "public libraries" and fire departments are not government services.4 -
US debt is at 20 trillion dollars. thats 13 zeroes after 2. so govt. spending is now being done by borrowing from the future generations. because of that, 1$ of additional debt is now causing a rise in GDP 1/3rd of what it used to 20 years back. there might be a time some decades down the line when new debt will cease to increase GDP.
http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2015/12/01/dont-sweat-the-debt-why-the-federal-budget-is-not-really-out-of-control/?utm_source=hootsuite
I am not an economic expert, but I think most layperson's discussions about "the national debt" are fraught with misunderstanding, inaccuracy, and alarmism. I thought this was a good overview.
right, but the trend of the same statistic doesnt lie. if the debt to gdp ratio goes from 50% to 105%, while the GDP creation per new debt keeps falling, noone in the right mind can say that the situation is better than before.
the total debt and debt/gdp ratio in US is now higher than before subprime crisis. would you say that is a good situation? there might not be a crisis, but the situation is surely not better.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
In the United States, Most "public libraries" and fire departments are not government services.
I was not aware of that. In most places I have lived, the library is part of the government (including where I live now). When I have lived in urban areas, fire services were too.
So at least some people are benefiting from the government in their area providing these services, though they are not universal.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
In the United States, Most "public libraries" and fire departments are not government services.
I was not aware of that. In most places I have lived, the library is part of the government (including where I live now). When I have lived in urban areas, fire services were too.
So at least some people are benefiting from the government in their area providing these services, though they are not universal.
I would encourage you to verify that, I'm not aware of any municipality that funds their "public libraries"3 -
My city had a 1 in a 100 year flood a few years ago.Downtown was under water. The people who lived along the river were under water. I don't begrudge them some help. I do begrudge them help again if they continue to live there.
Notwithstanding the influence of global warming and more extreme weather events as a result of climate change, that's a reasonably low risk.
Are we really that risk averse?
1 -
BTW, up here there is no such thing as food stamps. Very few schools have any sort of food program - a small number offer a bit of extra breakfast. There are food banks through donated foods but that's it. And food is more expensive up here by quite a lot.
So you are asserting that people in poverty in Canada do not get gov't aid? Or just that it is not in the very specific form that some of it takes in the US (i.e., food assistance, school lunches).
For example, we've established that Australia (for the most part) does not have aid in the SNAP format, but instead provides non-earmarked funds that cover a variety of needs.
How does aid to needy people work in Canada, if anyone can answer? I'm reasonably certain it's not just private aid/charities.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
In the United States, Most "public libraries" and fire departments are not government services.
I was not aware of that. In most places I have lived, the library is part of the government (including where I live now). When I have lived in urban areas, fire services were too.
So at least some people are benefiting from the government in their area providing these services, though they are not universal.
I would encourage you to verify that, I'm not aware of any municipality that funds their "public libraries"
I did verify it before I posted. Your post made me curious, so I looked it up. It is county-funded with some public support. The 2017 budget shows millions of dollars allocated to the library system and the buildings were constructed with public funds. This is also the case in the last place I lived (although it was a smaller county, so the funding was less).
The fire department here (and the last place I lived) are also funded by the government.9 -
LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
The original discussion was about whether government should restrict certain foods with bad nutritional profiles in the best interests of the populace receiving assistance, with the purpose of protecting their health and general welfare.
So, bringing up Houston is certainly an instructive example if we want to make the comparison to federal, state, and local approaches and restrictions to housing matters. I suspect Houston may have some regulations in place for their building code to help protect "the children" as best they can.
I also suspect that there are plenty of Texans that are horribly offended that the government doesn't just let them choose their own building materials and methodologies as they see fit (some rightfully so, some not so much), just as there are people who are horribly offended at the suggestion that perhaps their children should be fed food that is as nutritionally dense as possible (some rightfully so, some not so much). There are good arguments and good considerations on both sides of both of these issues.
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
In the United States, Most "public libraries" and fire departments are not government services.
I was not aware of that. In most places I have lived, the library is part of the government (including where I live now). When I have lived in urban areas, fire services were too.
So at least some people are benefiting from the government in their area providing these services, though they are not universal.
I would encourage you to verify that, I'm not aware of any municipality that funds their "public libraries"
I did verify it before I posted. Your post made me curious, so I looked it up. It is county-funded with some public support. The 2017 budget shows millions of dollars allocated to the library system and the buildings were constructed with public funds. This is also the case in the last place I lived (although it was a smaller county, so the funding was less).
The fire department here (and the last place I lived) are also funded by the government.
Our large county-wide library system is 94% funded by assorted taxes, predominantly property taxes. Our fire department is funded by the city, and the large township volunteer fire department I grew up with is mostly funded by the country and township, but of course it also benefits greatly from the thousands of hours of volunteer labor from the men and women who generously serve there. But there is no way a public safety entity is going to be able to afford millions of dollars worth of trucks and equipment, even with a huge volunteer force (unless they are involved in the kinds of shenanigans as one sees with the private fire departments in "Gangs of New York", ha ha.)3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
In the United States, Most "public libraries" and fire departments are not government services.
I was not aware of that. In most places I have lived, the library is part of the government (including where I live now). When I have lived in urban areas, fire services were too.
So at least some people are benefiting from the government in their area providing these services, though they are not universal.
I would encourage you to verify that, I'm not aware of any municipality that funds their "public libraries"
I did verify it before I posted. Your post made me curious, so I looked it up. It is county-funded with some public support. The 2017 budget shows millions of dollars allocated to the library system and the buildings were constructed with public funds. This is also the case in the last place I lived (although it was a smaller county, so the funding was less).
The fire department here (and the last place I lived) are also funded by the government.
Out of curiosity I looked for info on the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library and while I couldn't tell exactly where it's funding specifically came from, I could find meeting addenda where the trustees submit their budget to their individual county governments, and I know it's employees are employees of the City of Charlottesville.
We have a town Volunteer Fire Dept that I couldn't find info on, but they work in tandem with the Greene County Rescue Squad whose web page is a part of the website of the Greene County government.3 -
LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
I agree with you! I also believe differs from social security benefits because US citizens pay into social security specifically throughout their working lives. I think I even already had social security money coming out of my paycheck even when I first started working as a teenager.
Edited to change 'it' to I1 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Realizing that this may derail the thread, but I think this is a great conversation.
As part of any temporary benefits application process what would be your opinion on mandatory education of the following (as applicable):
Nutrition/Weight Management
Cooking
Budgeting
Home Economics
Thinking back to my military service, where if one applied for financial assistance they had to first attend a basic finance course and have their budgets reviewed by a counselor. This was a very effective program with an extremely low rate of repeat applications.
Where does one find time for mandatory classes? Usually someone on assistance is already working a huge amount of hours a week and still can't get by. Then the time it takes to put food on the table, spend time with family, etc etc.Alatariel75 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Bring back the poor house! The state should have full control over those pesky people daring to live in poverty and need state assistance.
I really despair of our attitude to those at the bottom of the pile.
I have a large number of First Cousins. One of them, who was one year older than I, was added to the welfare rolls at age 12 when her father died and she received U.S. Social Security benefits for being an orphan. Those expired when she turned 18, but college was free to her because of her orphan status. Preparing for that, she started producing children at age 16 so that she had government benefits for unmarried mothers and their children to replace her government benefits to orphans when she turned 18. At 19 she agreed to marry a man who was quite unable to produce an earned income and she kept receiving generous government assistance for her needy children, her low-income household, and oh-by-the-way her medical care was free, too. It was to her benefit that her older brother was a prosperous schmuck who provided her rent and grocery money unknown to the government. That's the cousin. I have a sister whose decidedly different course of life has been showered with great wealth. One day my sister was speaking with my cousin and asked her directly, "Why don't you get a job?" My cousin replied, "I make more money on welfare than I could at minimum wage."
It is that one person's story, my cousin, that more influences all my thoughts on government assistance to the needy than any other. She died of cancer 14 years ago because the free government medical care was a bit less than timely at delivering care.
We, as a society, don't need to be cruel as you parody, but we don't need to be schmucks, either.
I know this wasn't your point, but it does make me wonder at a society that pays so little in minimum wage that people in some circumstances are better off receiving aid instead of working . . . .
There was a documentary a couple of years ago, and I can't remember what it's called, but one of the people who was in it was a young single mother. Over the course of the documentary, all she wanted to do was find a job and get off of 'welfare'. She did end up finding a full time job, but realized that it put her over the cap pf being able to qualify for assistance but below what she actually needed to feed her kids. Obviously it's slanted (because it's a documentary), but I wonder how many people we have in the US in similar situations?
This causes me to ask the next level of "Why?"
Wage is based on market forces, primarily skill set, so why do we have a population lacking the skills to earn a minimum livable wage?
But the problem here is - those minimum, unlivable wage jobs will continue to exist, and need to be filled, even if the people currently in them manage to skill themselves out of them. So there will always be that group of people in those jobs (some with the skills to not be in them but without the available positions) who are stuck in this cycle.
Most of these jobs are temporary and transitional and intended for kids young adults entering the workplace. The intent is to gain additional skills, training and experience to work towards positions with greater responsibility and increased pay.
BLS stats:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2016/home.htm
Seems very similar to dieting in a yo-yo cycle. Change will not come without changing behavior.
And? They aren't anymore and people have to do them.
There are ~330 M people living in the US, with ~255 M in the workforce. Only 700 k are at the minimum wage per BLS report cited.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
These jobs certainly are temporary and transitional. The root cause is lack of job skills. Without addressing the root cause you are only addressing a symptom and dooming a population to a life of poverty.
And how do you suggest the root is addressed?
It has to be multifaceted - supplementation via SNAP, WIC is a correction, but not a corrective action.
For skills the entire college loan system needs to be overhauled and we need to stop subsidizing training to fields with no hope of employment. There are tremendous opportunities in the trades which are all on the verge of collapsing over the next two decades due to the baby boomer retirement. Per BLS we are going to lose ~65% of electricians, plumbers, carpenters, welders, etc. in the next decade. Public education either needs to re-incorporate tradeskills into the curriculum, or a private option needs to be created and incorporated into state curriculum. Forward thinking states are already doing this.
Government and industry need to look to long term solutions as opposed to the horrible shortsightedness we're grown accustomed to. It is in the best interests of everyone.
That all sounds good in a perfect world.
Personal responsibility > government intervention
Every time.
How does personal responsibility come into play for this?
Are we talking about people who lost their jobs and need temporary help or are we talking about chronic unemployment or underemployment?
Is this just a pull themselves up by their bootstraps and just make it happen?
Primarily we're talking about chronic unemployment/underemployment and so called adults complaining that they can't provide for a family on a job/wage that's intended for a single/dependent HS/College student to subsist on.
Like if that's the only job available at the time?
I fully support training programs for people to get out of jobs that pay so little.
I still don't understand why these jobs just can't offer a living wage in the first place.
Then start a business and offer your unskilled labor a "living wage".
I think if employee(s) are skilled enough to labor at an entrepreneur's business and make their money for them, the employee(s) are skilled.
And if an entrepreneur can't "afford" to pay a "living wage" to an employee, the entrepreneur can't afford to hire employees. Let the entrepreneur run his or her business singlehandedly. Or put their spouses and girlfriends and boyfriends and kids and stepchildren to work.
In other words the labor involved is below the value of $15/hr. Why shift this burden to family/friends? What is the logic behind this?
Unnecessary regulation hurts entrepreneurship and kills competition, protecting established larger firms. This regulation has eliminated a critical entry point for unskilled labor, removing a path for those wishing to gain skills to bring to the job market.3 -
The main issue I have with eliminating whole categories of food is that it becomes a nightmare for the retailers. They just do not have the time to go in their computer systems and say "yes SNAP can be used on this, no, it can't be used in this". Right now, the distinction is that already prepared foods cannot be purchased with SNAP but foods that are prepared at home can. There are a few weird things like you can buy a Papa Murphy's take and bake pizza with SNAP, but you cannot buy a whole rotisserie chicken from a grocery store with it.
Who decides which snack foods are and are not healthy? Graham crackers are considered healthy, but potato chips are not? How do the merchants separate them?
One thing that has been proposed that I can see as a way around this for the retailers is "if it is subject to sales tax, it cannot be purchased with SNAP". In my state, candy, soda, and some snacks are taxable. Most food and ingredients are not. Still would not allow that chicken to get purchased, though.
I find this interesting, as because until recently in Canada, this rule wouldn't have allowed the purchase of toilet paper or feminine products. They weren't considered a "necessity" and were subject to tax.1 -
ButterballBookworm wrote: »The main issue I have with eliminating whole categories of food is that it becomes a nightmare for the retailers. They just do not have the time to go in their computer systems and say "yes SNAP can be used on this, no, it can't be used in this". Right now, the distinction is that already prepared foods cannot be purchased with SNAP but foods that are prepared at home can. There are a few weird things like you can buy a Papa Murphy's take and bake pizza with SNAP, but you cannot buy a whole rotisserie chicken from a grocery store with it.
Who decides which snack foods are and are not healthy? Graham crackers are considered healthy, but potato chips are not? How do the merchants separate them?
One thing that has been proposed that I can see as a way around this for the retailers is "if it is subject to sales tax, it cannot be purchased with SNAP". In my state, candy, soda, and some snacks are taxable. Most food and ingredients are not. Still would not allow that chicken to get purchased, though.
I find this interesting, as because until recently in Canada, this rule wouldn't have allowed the purchase of toilet paper or feminine products. They weren't considered a "necessity" and were subject to tax.
. . . . . they're still taxed in the US
0 -
ButterballBookworm wrote: »The main issue I have with eliminating whole categories of food is that it becomes a nightmare for the retailers. They just do not have the time to go in their computer systems and say "yes SNAP can be used on this, no, it can't be used in this". Right now, the distinction is that already prepared foods cannot be purchased with SNAP but foods that are prepared at home can. There are a few weird things like you can buy a Papa Murphy's take and bake pizza with SNAP, but you cannot buy a whole rotisserie chicken from a grocery store with it.
Who decides which snack foods are and are not healthy? Graham crackers are considered healthy, but potato chips are not? How do the merchants separate them?
One thing that has been proposed that I can see as a way around this for the retailers is "if it is subject to sales tax, it cannot be purchased with SNAP". In my state, candy, soda, and some snacks are taxable. Most food and ingredients are not. Still would not allow that chicken to get purchased, though.
I find this interesting, as because until recently in Canada, this rule wouldn't have allowed the purchase of toilet paper or feminine products. They weren't considered a "necessity" and were subject to tax.
SNAP is only for food, so I don't believe they are allowed here in the US either.0 -
LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
I agree with you! I also believe differs from social security benefits because US citizens pay into social security specifically throughout their working lives. I think I even already had social security money coming out of my paycheck even when I first started working as a teenager.
Edited to change 'it' to I
Except you don't just get back what you paid in to Social Security (same with Medicare). It's also an income transfer program (which is fine, but people often don't seem to realize it).0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
Yet each one of these taxpayer funded services comes with restrictions and, generally speaking, people just accept it.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