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
-
GlassAngyl wrote: »Totally for it. And they should add all junk food items as well. Leave baking items and they can make junk from scratch...
Food deserts are a thing, unfortunately, which makes it very easy for well meaning policies to turn into a tax on those least able to afford it.0 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »
I think the wall is a stupid idea.. but to at least try and be positive - folks are gonna get paid to build it. That beats food stamps or even cash handouts any day. I really think we should be aiming to build society up such that rubbish minimum wage jobs are genuinely entry level. Then the exact form of assistance programs won't matter so much because they'll just be temporary stopgaps. It makes me sad to see folks getting so passionate about it - it's like the cause of them being needed has been given up on
I know it's needed now... but it still makes me sad.
Given a choice between paying people while they look for sustainable jobs, and paying them for temporary work that creates something I think is harmful, I'll take the former.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?
Not all shareholders get to vote. I can't vote on anything in my retirement fund. I do have some stock in a bank, and I get an invitation to the shareholders meeting every so often. But since I am a working stiff, I haven't been able to go.
Large corporations often get "incentives" from city governments. I can't help wondering who thinks that having a Walmart actually benefits a community. They create jobs that don't pay well and drive off smaller, more localized retailers. I'd love to see some long term comparisons of community health before and after a major source of low wage work moved in. Maybe I'm wrong.4 -
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...7 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »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.
Which is it then, shareholders or CEOs?
My point is that US workers have lost jobs due to production being taken overseas in order to increase profits.
3 -
clicketykeys wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »
I think the wall is a stupid idea.. but to at least try and be positive - folks are gonna get paid to build it. That beats food stamps or even cash handouts any day. I really think we should be aiming to build society up such that rubbish minimum wage jobs are genuinely entry level. Then the exact form of assistance programs won't matter so much because they'll just be temporary stopgaps. It makes me sad to see folks getting so passionate about it - it's like the cause of them being needed has been given up on I know it's needed now... but it still makes me sad.
Given a choice between paying people while they look for sustainable jobs, and paying them for temporary work that creates something I think is harmful, I'll take the former.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?
Not all shareholders get to vote. I can't vote on anything in my retirement fund. I do have some stock in a bank, and I get an invitation to the shareholders meeting every so often. But since I am a working stiff, I haven't been able to go.
Large corporations often get "incentives" from city governments. I can't help wondering who thinks that having a Walmart actually benefits a community. They create jobs that don't pay well and drive off smaller, more localized retailers. I'd love to see some long term comparisons of community health before and after a major source of low wage work moved in. Maybe I'm wrong.
Not defending Wal-Mart but how many "local"/small business retail/serice jobs have pay that is significantly different than Wal-Mart or chain restaurants?1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »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.
Which is it then, shareholders or CEOs?
My point is that US workers have lost jobs due to production being taken overseas in order to increase profits.
The loss of manufacturing jobs is a combination of sourcing to low cost countries and increased automation.
Say you need your grass cut. You could hire a company that would pay 5 people to cut the grass each with a small hand implement and it would cost $150. Or you could hire a company that sent 1 person with a riding mower and it would cost $50.
What are you doing?1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »
I think the wall is a stupid idea.. but to at least try and be positive - folks are gonna get paid to build it. That beats food stamps or even cash handouts any day. I really think we should be aiming to build society up such that rubbish minimum wage jobs are genuinely entry level. Then the exact form of assistance programs won't matter so much because they'll just be temporary stopgaps. It makes me sad to see folks getting so passionate about it - it's like the cause of them being needed has been given up on I know it's needed now... but it still makes me sad.
Given a choice between paying people while they look for sustainable jobs, and paying them for temporary work that creates something I think is harmful, I'll take the former.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?
Not all shareholders get to vote. I can't vote on anything in my retirement fund. I do have some stock in a bank, and I get an invitation to the shareholders meeting every so often. But since I am a working stiff, I haven't been able to go.
Large corporations often get "incentives" from city governments. I can't help wondering who thinks that having a Walmart actually benefits a community. They create jobs that don't pay well and drive off smaller, more localized retailers. I'd love to see some long term comparisons of community health before and after a major source of low wage work moved in. Maybe I'm wrong.
Not defending Wal-Mart but how many "local"/small business retail/serice jobs have pay that is significantly different than Wal-Mart or chain restaurants?
My very limited experience of working in the USA (aside from as a contractor) was at a small, family owned liquor store for $6 an hour. I don't know that Walmart would have been paying any more or less than that...0 -
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 job5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »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.
Which is it then, shareholders or CEOs?
My point is that US workers have lost jobs due to production being taken overseas in order to increase profits.
The loss of manufacturing jobs is a combination of sourcing to low cost countries and increased automation.
Say you need your grass cut. You could hire a company that would pay 5 people to cut the grass each with a small hand implement and it would cost $150. Or you could hire a company that sent 1 person with a riding mower and it would cost $50.
What are you doing?
I guess it would depend on what I could afford based on my income.
I frequently shop at the local family owned, and more expensive, supermarket even though it is considerably more expensive than Walmart because I feel obligated to put my money where my mouth is and support our local people ...and I have also tried shopping in small local stores, knowing I will pay more, before going to Amazon.
So, if I am in a position to pay more and help my community, I will do that.2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »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.
Which is it then, shareholders or CEOs?
My point is that US workers have lost jobs due to production being taken overseas in order to increase profits.
The loss of manufacturing jobs is a combination of sourcing to low cost countries and increased automation.
Say you need your grass cut. You could hire a company that would pay 5 people to cut the grass each with a small hand implement and it would cost $150. Or you could hire a company that sent 1 person with a riding mower and it would cost $50.
What are you doing?
I guess it would depend on what I could afford based on my income.
I frequently shop at the local family owned, and more expensive, supermarket even though it is considerably more expensive than Walmart because I feel obligated to put my money where my mouth is and support our local people ...and I have also tried shopping in small local stores, knowing I will pay more, before going to Amazon.
So, if I am in a position to pay more and help my community, I will do that.
Obviously, you're free to spend your money as you choose, but if you really wanted to help your community, instead of knowingly paying for overpriced goods, wouldn't your money make a bigger impact if you were to donate it to a food bank? The people who are happily charging you a 'community' premium don't need the help.1 -
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
According to the post that you responded to, they do've jobs; which means that they're also taxpayers & thus, it's also their; tax income! Plus many people that pay for their own health insurance're only paying premiums/deductibles, meaning that they'll never pay enough; to cover what they cost!
So what you're saying's that if your only paying $50,000, of a $100,000 surgery; that you don't deserve to've an Oreo cookie because you're unable to afford to pay the remainder but Scott Peterson gets to've ice cream, while upon; death row? No 1's complaining concerning that as much, therefore being poor must be worse; than being a murderer?1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »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.
Which is it then, shareholders or CEOs?
My point is that US workers have lost jobs due to production being taken overseas in order to increase profits.
The loss of manufacturing jobs is a combination of sourcing to low cost countries and increased automation.
Say you need your grass cut. You could hire a company that would pay 5 people to cut the grass each with a small hand implement and it would cost $150. Or you could hire a company that sent 1 person with a riding mower and it would cost $50.
What are you doing?
I guess it would depend on what I could afford based on my income.
And presumably finding enough people prepared to consistently pay that kind of premium to give five people a livable income? I'd also note that something like gardening services isn't something that you could offshore, given the need to be at your property.
As noted, in manufacturing, as that's what you've concentrated on, you've got automation, demand for reliability, design for easy maintainability, and modularity all reducing the demand for people, and suppressing the skill need on some of those people. That propagates through to reduced volume in support, and lower skill demand in support. So even before considering offshoring there are far fewer rules to go around.
You also need fewer production facilities, which drives a need to improve the logistics chain for delivery to the consumer.
All of these are driven by demand from consumers
https://www.markpack.org.uk/files/2017/04/The-Austin-Brexit.jpg0 -
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.1 -
clicketykeys wrote: »Not all shareholders get to vote. I can't vote on anything in my retirement fund.
Clearly there are some differences, but in my pension funds I do get a choice over which funds I go for; risk/ reward. The fund managers respond to that demand in their own interactions with the companies that they invest in. that might be voting against remuneration packages, rights releases, strategic direction.
Going back to the point I was responding to, the perception that cutting a few corporate salaries is going to drive a corporation to keep manufacturing in the organic market is demonstrably false. If the product isn't quality differentiated then keeping production in a higher cost market isn't going to help anyone, it just drives them out of business, because the consumer is largely driven by price.
The working poor is a consequence of a demand market that's largely price driven. some of the attitudes to the working poor, including some demonstrated in this thread, are pretty disgusting. As we see politics increasingly polarised any philanthropic action is becoming condemned, which is a great shame. The protectionism demonstrated above is a symptom of that, although it's clear that protectionism is rarely an effective solution to the economic doldrums.
3 -
I have no problem with people receiving food stamps if they really need it. But like mentioned above, it cuts like a knife when your in line at the Kroger and barely have enough to buy the food you need when the person in front of you is buying a cart full of soda and snacks and lobster tails with a food stamp ebt card.
I can't help but wonder why they don't restrict it like they do with WIC?
If people are truly hungry, they'll eat what food is given ( within reason obviously) . Buying sodas and lobster tails are not necessities.
Buying fresh fruits, meats, milk, eggs, cheese , bread, cereals and such are essentials for most people so I have no problem with seeing someone purchase those types of items on a EBT card.
I work all week and can't buy lobster tails and $28 filet mignon.5 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »
I think the wall is a stupid idea.. but to at least try and be positive - folks are gonna get paid to build it. That beats food stamps or even cash handouts any day. I really think we should be aiming to build society up such that rubbish minimum wage jobs are genuinely entry level. Then the exact form of assistance programs won't matter so much because they'll just be temporary stopgaps. It makes me sad to see folks getting so passionate about it - it's like the cause of them being needed has been given up on I know it's needed now... but it still makes me sad.
Most people want a decent life - they want a job that pays their bills and allows them some semblance of the American dream. Nobody WANTS to be stuck in a minimum wage job. Yet try to raise the minimum wage (which originally WAS intended by FDR to be a living wage, it was NOT intended to be a "starter job" wage for kids!!!) and everyone screams.
I think part of my problem with raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" level can be expressed by the question "how much is a living wage?". Is that full time - how many hours? Is it the same in every city, or in more rural areas? Should it be enough to support a family - do both parents need to work - how many kids and what sort of lifestyle? Does it depend on age? Add more questions as you see fit. That's why I favour arranging things such that everyone has a realistic option to earn more than minimum, if that better fits with their life goals.0 -
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.
It is my observation that the bolded is the most interesting part.
First, having grown up in that environment, I have the deepest of empathy for those who are stuck in that turnstyle. What I don't have is the least bit of sympathy. There's a system which encourages and subsidizes poor decision making and disincentivizes getting off the wheel. In 7th and 8th grade I had friends and classmates drop out because they were aging out of assistance and in order to continue to eat and have shelter it was their turn to have a baby. These are 13 and 14 and 15 year old girls whose choice is get pregnant and move out, or move into a foster home, group home situation because they're no longer welcome in their own home because the checks are going to stop.5 -
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 correct0 -
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.0 -
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.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions