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
-
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 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »We have our politicians to thank, I am sure, for the loss of so many good jobs in the US. People try to blame the working class (again) for wanting "cheap products" and giving rise to Walmarts taking over the nation and China imports replacing American made goods (jobs) but the real reason is the stockholders of corporations want more profits - higher profits come by cutting costs which comes from cheap labor overseas.
Given that the majority of shareholders are pension funds you'll find that it's still people. I appreciate that there is a perception that shareholders are already rich individuals, but the reality is that it's the expectation of both low costs now, and decent incomes in the future that are the issue here.
Whilst I'm not in the US, about 60% of my company is owned by institutional investors. We've also got a customer base that's driven by lower costs squeezing at the other end, which does make for some challenging times.
I'd also make the observation that most buyers are driven by one or two of three things; time, cost and quality. You can't have all three, but you could get two of them. Are you really sure that organic production is giving you what you want?
Well then those people should insist that the corporate hot shots not have such gigantic salaries hmmm? There is a disconnect somewhere - people are getting squeezed and it's not CEO's, and most of the people MOST HURT by this don't even have money for their own homes let alone money to buy stocks.
This is like an obese person looking at a thin person with envy.
A CEO salary has nothing to do with the fact that poor people exist. There certainly is a disconnect. A fundamental lack of knowledge of economics.
No it is not like that at all. If costs need to be cut why not cut outrageous salaries rather than take away jobs from US workers and then get all pissy when out of work people need food stamps...
...because CEO salaries have absolutely nothing to do with food stamps or taking away jobs.
Business follow favorable markets. If you create an environment that is unfavorable to business (e.g. high corporate taxation) many businesses will leave to areas more favorable to success.
I was talking about cutting costs to increase profits - cut costs from CEO salaries rather than take jobs away from people.
Take any executive salary and evenly distribute this among the workers. Fairly simple exercise that results in negligible increase in worker's salary.
Of course you could try being in charge and leading by example. Your business model of deliberate inefficiency does not bode well.2 -
Take any executive salary and evenly distribute this among the workers. Fairly simple exercise that results in negligible increase in worker's salary.
The company I work for has a CEO who is pretty well remunerated. I've just worked out that if we took his entire salary, and didn't pay him at all this year, I'd be the sum total of £0.40 better off per month, about 30 cents.5 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Take any executive salary and evenly distribute this among the workers. Fairly simple exercise that results in negligible increase in worker's salary.
The company I work for has a CEO who is pretty well remunerated. I've just worked out that if we took his entire salary, and didn't pay him at all this year, I'd be the sum total of £0.40 better off per month, about 30 cents.
I did the same for my last CEO and this amounted to 1USD/month.
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing I despise more than overcompensation for pitiful performance, but I'm not about to let this impact my joy. I'm fairly certain that there are people that make less than me who could make the same argument and feel wholly justified in playing Sheriff of Nottingham while pretending to be Robin Hood.
It's an envy/outrage Ponzi scheme.1 -
BecomingBane wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
What else is next for the poor people?
The government would probably like it if they got jobs (better jobs) and stopped needing welfare. But as it's their dime it's their rules so they can (and will) put as many caveats on it as they want.
Do you realize that a lot of people work and still need assistance? But yes in a perfect world everyone would have jobs and there would be no poor people.
heres the thing....when i was a kid and my parents didnt have money. they didnt buy soda and junk, also my mom didnt drink alcohol, though they enjoyed it. why? because they needed the money to put healthy groceries in their childrens bellies. if people work and still dont make ends meet, then maybe they hould spend their own money on junk, and cigarettes and whatever else.
second. its not the governments money they are giving away, but the taxpayers income tax money. tell you what...it burns pretty bad when you are busting your *kitten* in the grocery store and people come in and order whole ribeyes with their food stamps....not even to mention the huge bags of chips and cookies.
AMERICAN grown foods....fine...everyone should be entitled. you want oreos and soda/ get a damn job
Also when they arrive in a taxi to stand outside the grocery store with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth ($10 a pack now?) to stand by the front door and try and sell the food stamps for cash to the people going inside. Which is why they switched to the plastic EBT card so that couldn't be done anymore.
Thanks for bringing back the point that giveaways in the U.S. are funded exclusively by the working American taxpayer, many millions of whom are in the working class who barely scrape by and just miss the eligibility requirements for any assistance themselves if they can't meet their basic needs at some point.
And exploitation of what we call the welfare system, in its various categories, isn't occasional or rare. It's rampant.
But one would have to live and work shoulder to shoulder with recipients of subsidies and freebees to understand what that's actually like.
So yeah EBT, WIC, Section 8, public housing, free post-secondary educations which includes full tuition, free books, stipends and all fees covered, free cell phones, subsidized gas and electric payments, free childcare, and Medicaid - once all this is covered by the working taxpayer, and it is, one would have to wonder what being "poor" actually means in the U.S.
To understand how fed up and furious the working class (particularly the lower end of it) is, one would have to walk in their shoes. And we all know that isn't going to happen.
The working class literally wait hand and foot while at their service jobs on these welfare recipients. Then they go home to their $1000 a month one bedroom apartments where they have to pay market rent and get kept up all night by the Section 8ers on all sides of them who live in the same building for free and make life hell for everyone else. Parties, loud music, slamming the doors at all hours, loud arguments spilling into the hallway, throwing trash everywhere and welcoming 10 other family members to live in the unit for free too - yep. Pretty standard practice in these scenarios.
Where in the world is this free post secondary education that is completely covered by the US taxpayer. This is not a thing I've ever heard of and you state that it exists. One of the biggest issues in the US is that post secondary education is declining due to rising costs, lower funding, fewer grants, etc. Not to mention the risk of predatory lenders and the growing student debt balloon.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/12/01/one-family-scholars-college-low-income-massachusetts-parents/
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/05/30/free-college-tuition-the-boston-bridge/
http://www.mass.edu/osfa/home/home.asp
So, one school with a scholorship program available only to people living in one city, now counts as free post secondary education for every tax payer. Good to know the 40k a semester I spent was so stupid of me when I could have just moved to Boston. *eye roll*
*edited to correct
... where on earth did you go to school that cost 40K a semester? Stanford, Princeton and Harvard cost about 40K a YEAR for out of state tuition.0 -
jseams1234 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
What else is next for the poor people?
The government would probably like it if they got jobs (better jobs) and stopped needing welfare. But as it's their dime it's their rules so they can (and will) put as many caveats on it as they want.
Do you realize that a lot of people work and still need assistance? But yes in a perfect world everyone would have jobs and there would be no poor people.
heres the thing....when i was a kid and my parents didnt have money. they didnt buy soda and junk, also my mom didnt drink alcohol, though they enjoyed it. why? because they needed the money to put healthy groceries in their childrens bellies. if people work and still dont make ends meet, then maybe they hould spend their own money on junk, and cigarettes and whatever else.
second. its not the governments money they are giving away, but the taxpayers income tax money. tell you what...it burns pretty bad when you are busting your *kitten* in the grocery store and people come in and order whole ribeyes with their food stamps....not even to mention the huge bags of chips and cookies.
AMERICAN grown foods....fine...everyone should be entitled. you want oreos and soda/ get a damn job
Also when they arrive in a taxi to stand outside the grocery store with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth ($10 a pack now?) to stand by the front door and try and sell the food stamps for cash to the people going inside. Which is why they switched to the plastic EBT card so that couldn't be done anymore.
Thanks for bringing back the point that giveaways in the U.S. are funded exclusively by the working American taxpayer, many millions of whom are in the working class who barely scrape by and just miss the eligibility requirements for any assistance themselves if they can't meet their basic needs at some point.
And exploitation of what we call the welfare system, in its various categories, isn't occasional or rare. It's rampant.
But one would have to live and work shoulder to shoulder with recipients of subsidies and freebees to understand what that's actually like.
So yeah EBT, WIC, Section 8, public housing, free post-secondary educations which includes full tuition, free books, stipends and all fees covered, free cell phones, subsidized gas and electric payments, free childcare, and Medicaid - once all this is covered by the working taxpayer, and it is, one would have to wonder what being "poor" actually means in the U.S.
To understand how fed up and furious the working class (particularly the lower end of it) is, one would have to walk in their shoes. And we all know that isn't going to happen.
The working class literally wait hand and foot while at their service jobs on these welfare recipients. Then they go home to their $1000 a month one bedroom apartments where they have to pay market rent and get kept up all night by the Section 8ers on all sides of them who live in the same building for free and make life hell for everyone else. Parties, loud music, slamming the doors at all hours, loud arguments spilling into the hallway, throwing trash everywhere and welcoming 10 other family members to live in the unit for free too - yep. Pretty standard practice in these scenarios.
Where in the world is this free post secondary education that is completely covered by the US taxpayer. This is not a thing I've ever heard of and you state that it exists. One of the biggest issues in the US is that post secondary education is declining due to rising costs, lower funding, fewer grants, etc. Not to mention the risk of predatory lenders and the growing student debt balloon.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/12/01/one-family-scholars-college-low-income-massachusetts-parents/
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/05/30/free-college-tuition-the-boston-bridge/
http://www.mass.edu/osfa/home/home.asp
So, one school with a scholorship program available only to people living in one city, now counts as free post secondary education for every tax payer. Good to know the 40k a semester I spent was so stupid of me when I could have just moved to Boston. *eye roll*
*edited to correct
... where on earth did you go to school that cost 40K a semester? Stanford, Princeton and Harvard cost about 40K a YEAR for out of state tuition.
Private liberal arts university.0 -
jseams1234 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
What else is next for the poor people?
The government would probably like it if they got jobs (better jobs) and stopped needing welfare. But as it's their dime it's their rules so they can (and will) put as many caveats on it as they want.
Do you realize that a lot of people work and still need assistance? But yes in a perfect world everyone would have jobs and there would be no poor people.
heres the thing....when i was a kid and my parents didnt have money. they didnt buy soda and junk, also my mom didnt drink alcohol, though they enjoyed it. why? because they needed the money to put healthy groceries in their childrens bellies. if people work and still dont make ends meet, then maybe they hould spend their own money on junk, and cigarettes and whatever else.
second. its not the governments money they are giving away, but the taxpayers income tax money. tell you what...it burns pretty bad when you are busting your *kitten* in the grocery store and people come in and order whole ribeyes with their food stamps....not even to mention the huge bags of chips and cookies.
AMERICAN grown foods....fine...everyone should be entitled. you want oreos and soda/ get a damn job
Also when they arrive in a taxi to stand outside the grocery store with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth ($10 a pack now?) to stand by the front door and try and sell the food stamps for cash to the people going inside. Which is why they switched to the plastic EBT card so that couldn't be done anymore.
Thanks for bringing back the point that giveaways in the U.S. are funded exclusively by the working American taxpayer, many millions of whom are in the working class who barely scrape by and just miss the eligibility requirements for any assistance themselves if they can't meet their basic needs at some point.
And exploitation of what we call the welfare system, in its various categories, isn't occasional or rare. It's rampant.
But one would have to live and work shoulder to shoulder with recipients of subsidies and freebees to understand what that's actually like.
So yeah EBT, WIC, Section 8, public housing, free post-secondary educations which includes full tuition, free books, stipends and all fees covered, free cell phones, subsidized gas and electric payments, free childcare, and Medicaid - once all this is covered by the working taxpayer, and it is, one would have to wonder what being "poor" actually means in the U.S.
To understand how fed up and furious the working class (particularly the lower end of it) is, one would have to walk in their shoes. And we all know that isn't going to happen.
The working class literally wait hand and foot while at their service jobs on these welfare recipients. Then they go home to their $1000 a month one bedroom apartments where they have to pay market rent and get kept up all night by the Section 8ers on all sides of them who live in the same building for free and make life hell for everyone else. Parties, loud music, slamming the doors at all hours, loud arguments spilling into the hallway, throwing trash everywhere and welcoming 10 other family members to live in the unit for free too - yep. Pretty standard practice in these scenarios.
Where in the world is this free post secondary education that is completely covered by the US taxpayer. This is not a thing I've ever heard of and you state that it exists. One of the biggest issues in the US is that post secondary education is declining due to rising costs, lower funding, fewer grants, etc. Not to mention the risk of predatory lenders and the growing student debt balloon.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/12/01/one-family-scholars-college-low-income-massachusetts-parents/
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/05/30/free-college-tuition-the-boston-bridge/
http://www.mass.edu/osfa/home/home.asp
So, one school with a scholorship program available only to people living in one city, now counts as free post secondary education for every tax payer. Good to know the 40k a semester I spent was so stupid of me when I could have just moved to Boston. *eye roll*
*edited to correct
... where on earth did you go to school that cost 40K a semester? Stanford, Princeton and Harvard cost about 40K a YEAR for out of state tuition.
It never fails to surprise me what people are willing to pay to go to some private colleges when the state university has a better reputation.2 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Take any executive salary and evenly distribute this among the workers. Fairly simple exercise that results in negligible increase in worker's salary.
The company I work for has a CEO who is pretty well remunerated. I've just worked out that if we took his entire salary, and didn't pay him at all this year, I'd be the sum total of £0.40 better off per month, about 30 cents.
Even if you added on all the higher level executive salaries I doubt you'd get much further than £20 a month. I'm happy enough to sacrifice that amount of pay for the organisational structure and benefits that come with that.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
What else is next for the poor people?
The government would probably like it if they got jobs (better jobs) and stopped needing welfare. But as it's their dime it's their rules so they can (and will) put as many caveats on it as they want.
Do you realize that a lot of people work and still need assistance? But yes in a perfect world everyone would have jobs and there would be no poor people.
heres the thing....when i was a kid and my parents didnt have money. they didnt buy soda and junk, also my mom didnt drink alcohol, though they enjoyed it. why? because they needed the money to put healthy groceries in their childrens bellies. if people work and still dont make ends meet, then maybe they hould spend their own money on junk, and cigarettes and whatever else.
second. its not the governments money they are giving away, but the taxpayers income tax money. tell you what...it burns pretty bad when you are busting your *kitten* in the grocery store and people come in and order whole ribeyes with their food stamps....not even to mention the huge bags of chips and cookies.
AMERICAN grown foods....fine...everyone should be entitled. you want oreos and soda/ get a damn job
Also when they arrive in a taxi to stand outside the grocery store with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth ($10 a pack now?) to stand by the front door and try and sell the food stamps for cash to the people going inside. Which is why they switched to the plastic EBT card so that couldn't be done anymore.
Thanks for bringing back the point that giveaways in the U.S. are funded exclusively by the working American taxpayer, many millions of whom are in the working class who barely scrape by and just miss the eligibility requirements for any assistance themselves if they can't meet their basic needs at some point.
And exploitation of what we call the welfare system, in its various categories, isn't occasional or rare. It's rampant.
But one would have to live and work shoulder to shoulder with recipients of subsidies and freebees to understand what that's actually like.
So yeah EBT, WIC, Section 8, public housing, free post-secondary educations which includes full tuition, free books, stipends and all fees covered, free cell phones, subsidized gas and electric payments, free childcare, and Medicaid - once all this is covered by the working taxpayer, and it is, one would have to wonder what being "poor" actually means in the U.S.
To understand how fed up and furious the working class (particularly the lower end of it) is, one would have to walk in their shoes. And we all know that isn't going to happen.
The working class literally wait hand and foot while at their service jobs on these welfare recipients. Then they go home to their $1000 a month one bedroom apartments where they have to pay market rent and get kept up all night by the Section 8ers on all sides of them who live in the same building for free and make life hell for everyone else. Parties, loud music, slamming the doors at all hours, loud arguments spilling into the hallway, throwing trash everywhere and welcoming 10 other family members to live in the unit for free too - yep. Pretty standard practice in these scenarios.
Where in the world is this free post secondary education that is completely covered by the US taxpayer. This is not a thing I've ever heard of and you state that it exists. One of the biggest issues in the US is that post secondary education is declining due to rising costs, lower funding, fewer grants, etc. Not to mention the risk of predatory lenders and the growing student debt balloon.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/12/01/one-family-scholars-college-low-income-massachusetts-parents/
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/05/30/free-college-tuition-the-boston-bridge/
http://www.mass.edu/osfa/home/home.asp
So, one school with a scholorship program available only to people living in one city, now counts as free post secondary education for every tax payer. Good to know the 40k a semester I spent was so stupid of me when I could have just moved to Boston. *eye roll*
*edited to correct
... where on earth did you go to school that cost 40K a semester? Stanford, Princeton and Harvard cost about 40K a YEAR for out of state tuition.
Private liberal arts university.
I still don't get it - the most expensive private colleges I can find listed are still (lol) only about 55-60K a year for tuition, not a semester. Also curious, what kind of degree did you end up getting from this liberal arts university that cost 640K for a four year degree? ... or are the semesters in a this university a year long... and are we talking USD?0 -
jseams1234 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
What else is next for the poor people?
The government would probably like it if they got jobs (better jobs) and stopped needing welfare. But as it's their dime it's their rules so they can (and will) put as many caveats on it as they want.
Do you realize that a lot of people work and still need assistance? But yes in a perfect world everyone would have jobs and there would be no poor people.
heres the thing....when i was a kid and my parents didnt have money. they didnt buy soda and junk, also my mom didnt drink alcohol, though they enjoyed it. why? because they needed the money to put healthy groceries in their childrens bellies. if people work and still dont make ends meet, then maybe they hould spend their own money on junk, and cigarettes and whatever else.
second. its not the governments money they are giving away, but the taxpayers income tax money. tell you what...it burns pretty bad when you are busting your *kitten* in the grocery store and people come in and order whole ribeyes with their food stamps....not even to mention the huge bags of chips and cookies.
AMERICAN grown foods....fine...everyone should be entitled. you want oreos and soda/ get a damn job
Also when they arrive in a taxi to stand outside the grocery store with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth ($10 a pack now?) to stand by the front door and try and sell the food stamps for cash to the people going inside. Which is why they switched to the plastic EBT card so that couldn't be done anymore.
Thanks for bringing back the point that giveaways in the U.S. are funded exclusively by the working American taxpayer, many millions of whom are in the working class who barely scrape by and just miss the eligibility requirements for any assistance themselves if they can't meet their basic needs at some point.
And exploitation of what we call the welfare system, in its various categories, isn't occasional or rare. It's rampant.
But one would have to live and work shoulder to shoulder with recipients of subsidies and freebees to understand what that's actually like.
So yeah EBT, WIC, Section 8, public housing, free post-secondary educations which includes full tuition, free books, stipends and all fees covered, free cell phones, subsidized gas and electric payments, free childcare, and Medicaid - once all this is covered by the working taxpayer, and it is, one would have to wonder what being "poor" actually means in the U.S.
To understand how fed up and furious the working class (particularly the lower end of it) is, one would have to walk in their shoes. And we all know that isn't going to happen.
The working class literally wait hand and foot while at their service jobs on these welfare recipients. Then they go home to their $1000 a month one bedroom apartments where they have to pay market rent and get kept up all night by the Section 8ers on all sides of them who live in the same building for free and make life hell for everyone else. Parties, loud music, slamming the doors at all hours, loud arguments spilling into the hallway, throwing trash everywhere and welcoming 10 other family members to live in the unit for free too - yep. Pretty standard practice in these scenarios.
Where in the world is this free post secondary education that is completely covered by the US taxpayer. This is not a thing I've ever heard of and you state that it exists. One of the biggest issues in the US is that post secondary education is declining due to rising costs, lower funding, fewer grants, etc. Not to mention the risk of predatory lenders and the growing student debt balloon.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/12/01/one-family-scholars-college-low-income-massachusetts-parents/
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/05/30/free-college-tuition-the-boston-bridge/
http://www.mass.edu/osfa/home/home.asp
So, one school with a scholorship program available only to people living in one city, now counts as free post secondary education for every tax payer. Good to know the 40k a semester I spent was so stupid of me when I could have just moved to Boston. *eye roll*
*edited to correct
... where on earth did you go to school that cost 40K a semester? Stanford, Princeton and Harvard cost about 40K a YEAR for out of state tuition.
Private liberal arts university.
I still don't get it - the most expensive private colleges I can find listed are still (lol) only about 55-60K a year for tuition, not a semester. Also curious, what kind of degree did you end up getting from this liberal arts university that cost 640K for a four year degree? ... or are the semesters in a this university a year long... and are we talking USD?
I actually ran two at once. One for Religious studies with a focus on Eastern World Religions and Translations of primary source materials, and Music performance with jazz as a focus.1 -
This never works, you can simply go to stores that just ring up grocery and don't itemize or ring up items by a barcode. But that isn't the problem WHY THE HELL is soda and juice cheaper than water? Poor people by what's cheap. Everything on the outside isles of the grocery store are far more expensive than what's on the inside isles plus they don't last as long. The average family household make 50k a year is considered middle-class poor so food stamps maybe needed to supplement WITHOUT restrictions.1
-
BecomingBane wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
What else is next for the poor people?
The government would probably like it if they got jobs (better jobs) and stopped needing welfare. But as it's their dime it's their rules so they can (and will) put as many caveats on it as they want.
Do you realize that a lot of people work and still need assistance? But yes in a perfect world everyone would have jobs and there would be no poor people.
heres the thing....when i was a kid and my parents didnt have money. they didnt buy soda and junk, also my mom didnt drink alcohol, though they enjoyed it. why? because they needed the money to put healthy groceries in their childrens bellies. if people work and still dont make ends meet, then maybe they hould spend their own money on junk, and cigarettes and whatever else.
second. its not the governments money they are giving away, but the taxpayers income tax money. tell you what...it burns pretty bad when you are busting your *kitten* in the grocery store and people come in and order whole ribeyes with their food stamps....not even to mention the huge bags of chips and cookies.
AMERICAN grown foods....fine...everyone should be entitled. you want oreos and soda/ get a damn job
Also when they arrive in a taxi to stand outside the grocery store with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth ($10 a pack now?) to stand by the front door and try and sell the food stamps for cash to the people going inside. Which is why they switched to the plastic EBT card so that couldn't be done anymore.
Thanks for bringing back the point that giveaways in the U.S. are funded exclusively by the working American taxpayer, many millions of whom are in the working class who barely scrape by and just miss the eligibility requirements for any assistance themselves if they can't meet their basic needs at some point.
And exploitation of what we call the welfare system, in its various categories, isn't occasional or rare. It's rampant.
But one would have to live and work shoulder to shoulder with recipients of subsidies and freebees to understand what that's actually like.
So yeah EBT, WIC, Section 8, public housing, free post-secondary educations which includes full tuition, free books, stipends and all fees covered, free cell phones, subsidized gas and electric payments, free childcare, and Medicaid - once all this is covered by the working taxpayer, and it is, one would have to wonder what being "poor" actually means in the U.S.
To understand how fed up and furious the working class (particularly the lower end of it) is, one would have to walk in their shoes. And we all know that isn't going to happen.
The working class literally wait hand and foot while at their service jobs on these welfare recipients. Then they go home to their $1000 a month one bedroom apartments where they have to pay market rent and get kept up all night by the Section 8ers on all sides of them who live in the same building for free and make life hell for everyone else. Parties, loud music, slamming the doors at all hours, loud arguments spilling into the hallway, throwing trash everywhere and welcoming 10 other family members to live in the unit for free too - yep. Pretty standard practice in these scenarios.
Where in the world is this free post secondary education that is completely covered by the US taxpayer. This is not a thing I've ever heard of and you state that it exists. One of the biggest issues in the US is that post secondary education is declining due to rising costs, lower funding, fewer grants, etc. Not to mention the risk of predatory lenders and the growing student debt balloon.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/12/01/one-family-scholars-college-low-income-massachusetts-parents/
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/05/30/free-college-tuition-the-boston-bridge/
http://www.mass.edu/osfa/home/home.asp
So, one school with a scholorship program available only to people living in one city, now counts as free post secondary education for every tax payer. Good to know the 40k a semester I spent was so stupid of me when I could have just moved to Boston. *eye roll*
*edited to correct
... where on earth did you go to school that cost 40K a semester? Stanford, Princeton and Harvard cost about 40K a YEAR for out of state tuition.
Private liberal arts university.
I still don't get it - the most expensive private colleges I can find listed are still (lol) only about 55-60K a year for tuition, not a semester. Also curious, what kind of degree did you end up getting from this liberal arts university that cost 640K for a four year degree? ... or are the semesters in a this university a year long... and are we talking USD?
I actually ran two at once. One for Religious studies with a focus on Eastern World Religions and Translations of primary source materials, and Music performance with jazz as a focus.
Dude. I yield to no one in the frivolity and obscurity of my degrees, but you (presumably) paid $320 K and didn't cover it with scholarships? How does that even work economically? Like, were you "spending" it from a trust fund?4 -
No... scholarships and student loans, like the vast majority of other Americans. I'm actually still paying for it. Nothing wrong with that, but hey, can we stop derailing the thread? My degrees and my personal finances were not the topics of discussion. I merely raised the point that there is only one university in one city in the US that provides free education and only to residents of that city.
The fact of the matter is that there is not a free secondary education available to most americans, university costs are only going up, interest rates on loans are increasing, etc. I was countering a point, not making any kind of brag. I will most likely be paying for this for years to come simply because no such "free secondary education paid for by taxes" actually exists for Americans to utilize.
If, for some reason you are that concerned with my education, you're welcome to PM me.0 -
Really. You can make that decision for other people? I guess it's lucky we have you to make decisions for everyone.
While we're at it, coffee and tea also have no nutritional value. Why don't we just ban it for everyone. Would you feel good about that? BTW, we are all taxpayers, even people on EBT, many who are actually working at jobs still are liable to taxes, just like everyone else. A lot of disabled veterans and other people are also on EBT, and let's not forget the elderly people living on fixed incomes.
Personally, I have little use for sodas, but I would not prohibit them for others, if that's what they choose to spend their grocery money on. If I understand the system correctly, you get X amount of credit toward approved food item per month. If you blow it all on candy, chips, popcorn, etc..., well, that's your business. You will just be hungry for the rest of the month. I also think EBT should cover necessities like toilet paper, soap, toothpaste, deodorant, aspirin, etc... I don't know why it doesn't. These things are just as important to your health as eating is.
Just my opinion. I have a problem with people assuming the authority to make decisions for others, unless it's done through due process. I believe everyone has the right to go to Hell in their own hand-basket, if they choose to do so. You reap what you sow, most of the time.tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.5 -
This content has been removed.
-
I also think EBT should cover necessities like toilet paper, soap, toothpaste, deodorant, aspirin, etc... I don't know why it doesn't. These things are just as important to your health as eating is.tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
I have actually run into that exact situation at the mission where I volunteer once a week. We have a food pantry every other week and a clothing distribution every other week. One day a lady came in who is a regular client of the mission asking us if we had a roll of toilet paper because she was completely out and had no money until her disability check cleared in a few days. This woman is in her 60s and is incontinent and has all kinds of health issues. That broke my heart but there are people in the United States who have to ask for a gift of toilet paper. This woman is not a leech on the system she has serious health issues. And is reduced to begging for toilet paper.3 -
I also think EBT should cover necessities like toilet paper, soap, toothpaste, deodorant, aspirin, etc... I don't know why it doesn't. These things are just as important to your health as eating is.tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
I have actually run into that exact situation at the mission where I volunteer once a week. We have a food pantry every other week and a clothing distribution every other week. One day a lady came in who is a regular client of the mission asking us if we had a roll of toilet paper because she was completely out and had no money until her disability check cleared in a few days. This woman is in her 60s and is incontinent and has all kinds of health issues. That broke my heart but there are people in the United States who have to ask for a gift of toilet paper. This woman is not a leech on the system she has serious health issues. And is reduced to begging for toilet paper.
It doesn't cover toilet paper? That sucks. I suppose though, here in Australia pads and tampons attract "luxury tax". Note that condoms don't, though.0 -
Soul_Radiation wrote: »I think if we don't want people to eat unhealthy foods, it might make more sense to stop subsidizing corn in the way that we do...which is used to produce a lot of junk food. The coke should probably be more expensive, but if that is what people want to spend the food stamps on...then fine.
Corn (and other) subsidies probably affect the cost of meat (which is very cheap in the US) more than junk food, as the majority of the budget for junk food is on things like advertising. (I note that what you said is not inconsistent with this, but I wanted to point it out explicitly.)
I don't care if meat prices go up -- in fact, I think subsidies create a distortion in the market and I am against them. But I do think it's important in discussing this to note that it could affect prices more broadly.
This article argues that there wouldn't really be a significant affect on prices anyway (I am not so sure, as I think one reason the amount of HFCS in foods has increased so much is that it's dirt cheap), and suggests instead:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2016/07/are-corn-subsidies-making-us-fat-/there’s a parallel field of policy dedicated to the idea of encouraging certain purchases by lowering prices. Paying farmers can be seen as subsidizing supply, while directly reducing consumer price is more like subsidizing demand. And that, says Just, is “much more effective…in terms of changing what people eat.”
What’s most effective of all, suggests research from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is a variation on coupons—which policymakers have taken to calling “incentives”—rather than lower prices in general. A 2010 study there found that while lower prices could boost sales by 5 or 6 percent, coupons could boost sales by as much as 11 percent. Additional research suggested that a 10-percent subsidy would boost consumption by up to about 5 percent. Researchers suggested that this was because coupons not only dropped the price, but functioned as advertisement and information, too, reminding shopper to pick up fruits and vegetables.
More recently, Wilde and colleagues studied whether a program offering a 30 percent rebate for produce bought with SNAP benefits would change what people ate. And it did: People who got the rebate increased their fruit and vegetable consumption by about 25 percent, says Wilde. The study was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Notably for the modern, digital era, the rebate was automatically provided when people paid with their SNAP card; none of the 7,500 households that got the rebate had to clip coupons to get it.
“It wasn’t large enough to close the gap between where people are and where they are recommended to be,” says Wilde; people still fell short of their recommended daily allowance for produce. That’s a problem for most Americans: 87 percent of adults fail to eat their RDA of vegetables. Indeed, policymakers looking to shift health population wide might need to offer coupons for all. While wealthy American may eat better than the poor, that’s a kind of splitting hairs, says Wilde. “The really notable thing about the United States,” he says, “is that nobody has a very healthy diet.”1 -
Really. You can make that decision for other people? I guess it's lucky we have you to make decisions for everyone.
While we're at it, coffee and tea also have no nutritional value. Why don't we just ban it for everyone. Would you feel good about that? BTW, we are all taxpayers, even people on EBT, many who are actually working at jobs still are liable to taxes, just like everyone else. A lot of disabled veterans and other people are also on EBT, and let's not forget the elderly people living on fixed incomes.
Personally, I have little use for sodas, but I would not prohibit them for others, if that's what they choose to spend their grocery money on. If I understand the system correctly, you get X amount of credit toward approved food item per month. If you blow it all on candy, chips, popcorn, etc..., well, that's your business. You will just be hungry for the rest of the month. I also think EBT should cover necessities like toilet paper, soap, toothpaste, deodorant, aspirin, etc... I don't know why it doesn't. These things are just as important to your health as eating is.
Just my opinion. I have a problem with people assuming the authority to make decisions for others, unless it's done through due process. I believe everyone has the right to go to Hell in their own hand-basket, if they choose to do so. You reap what you sow, most of the time.tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
Few if any on SNAP are paying federal income taxes which fund the program2 -
Most states I've lived or worked in require one to either have a job or be actively applying for jobs regularly and verifiably before they will allow SNAP benefits.1
-
Chiming in here as a SNAP recipient. I work full time and have considtently been employed for my entire adult life the only lapse was while on bedrest during a high risk pregnancy and recovery time after delivery which makes sense. People can buy anything they want with their card as long as its edible. Honestly, it bothers me that the budget we get doesnt account for how we should be eating but that doesnt mean its impossible to work with. Dry beans and lentils are way cheaper than canned, shopping the weekly sales gives you more bang for your buck, you dont need to buy fancy boneless chicken breasts you can use bone in pieces and still have a delicious healthy meal. Furthermore, the NYC green market has a token incentive which plays off the aforementioned study. Customers on SNAP can purchase tokens with their card and receieve bonus tokens at certain amounts (ex - if i buy 10 dollars in tokens i get 13 to spend so my nice bunch of kale is totally free) also, i take advantage of my local freegan food share. This is something that isnt in all communities but if youre bold enough and your area isnt crazy dangerous going dumpster diving could be fun. I personally have never gone because the cost of hiring a babysitter makes it not worth it for me but everyones situation is different2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 422 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