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
-
happytree923 wrote: »
I never said "I" was or even have any desire to choose what other people eat. Just saying that government funds come with government rules and comparing that to my donations = what I decide to donate. This government funds comes with government rules concept is not limited to food stamps.
You are right in that I was thinking more along the lines of what a lot of churches call a "food pantry" that is maintained by the church's budget for that in addition to members donating food based on a listed of needed items (I've never seen soda on this list).
However, since you mentioned Food Banks and that tax dollars (government) help fund these as well, soda is also not on the list of items for that.
But SNAP isn’t a donation/charity from the government, it’s an entitlement program. Meaning anyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the program is entitled to receive it.
The government has to ensure that everyone eligible has equal opportunity to apply for and benefit from the program. Many people in this thread have discussed situations where doctors have told them to eat the kinds of foods people are talking about forbidding. Rare or not, entitlement programs need to accommodate people in these situations.
Calling something an entitlement doesn't make it so.
It's charity.
Entitlement is something that has been earned by the recipient or someone associated to them.
This is my number one pet peeve on the subject. SS, Medicare, are entitlements. SNAP, WIC, Medicaid are charity. They may well be the right thing to do, but they aren't entitlements.
And just because a word has been abused for 50 or 60 or 100 years doesn't change reality.8 -
stanmann571 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »
I never said "I" was or even have any desire to choose what other people eat. Just saying that government funds come with government rules and comparing that to my donations = what I decide to donate. This government funds comes with government rules concept is not limited to food stamps.
You are right in that I was thinking more along the lines of what a lot of churches call a "food pantry" that is maintained by the church's budget for that in addition to members donating food based on a listed of needed items (I've never seen soda on this list).
However, since you mentioned Food Banks and that tax dollars (government) help fund these as well, soda is also not on the list of items for that.
But SNAP isn’t a donation/charity from the government, it’s an entitlement program. Meaning anyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the program is entitled to receive it.
The government has to ensure that everyone eligible has equal opportunity to apply for and benefit from the program. Many people in this thread have discussed situations where doctors have told them to eat the kinds of foods people are talking about forbidding. Rare or not, entitlement programs need to accommodate people in these situations.
Calling something an entitlement doesn't make it so.
It's charity.
Entitlement is something that has been earned by the recipient or someone associated to them.
This is my number one pet peeve on the subject. SS, Medicare, are entitlements. SNAP, WIC, Medicaid are charity. They may well be the right thing to do, but they aren't entitlements.
And just because a word has been abused for 50 or 60 or 100 years doesn't change reality.
I am calling it an entitlement program because it literally meets the exact definition of an entitlement program. If you disagree take it up with the dictionary? The federal government? Your local HHS office? God? Because SNAP meets the criteria exactly as entitlement program is currently defined.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »
I never said "I" was or even have any desire to choose what other people eat. Just saying that government funds come with government rules and comparing that to my donations = what I decide to donate. This government funds comes with government rules concept is not limited to food stamps.
You are right in that I was thinking more along the lines of what a lot of churches call a "food pantry" that is maintained by the church's budget for that in addition to members donating food based on a listed of needed items (I've never seen soda on this list).
However, since you mentioned Food Banks and that tax dollars (government) help fund these as well, soda is also not on the list of items for that.
But SNAP isn’t a donation/charity from the government, it’s an entitlement program. Meaning anyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the program is entitled to receive it.
The government has to ensure that everyone eligible has equal opportunity to apply for and benefit from the program. Many people in this thread have discussed situations where doctors have told them to eat the kinds of foods people are talking about forbidding. Rare or not, entitlement programs need to accommodate people in these situations.
Calling something an entitlement doesn't make it so.
It's charity.
Entitlement is something that has been earned by the recipient or someone associated to them.
This is my number one pet peeve on the subject. SS, Medicare, are entitlements. SNAP, WIC, Medicaid are charity. They may well be the right thing to do, but they aren't entitlements.
I definitely agree with you about entitlements and even though it's the right thing to do it's not an entitlement.
I don't necessarily agree with calling it "charity", and this is definitely splitting hairs because we seem to be on the same side here, but "charity" implies that the funders (taxpayers) did so willingly and taxes aren't a choice.
Maybe "government mandated charity" would be a better term.2 -
happytree923 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »
I never said "I" was or even have any desire to choose what other people eat. Just saying that government funds come with government rules and comparing that to my donations = what I decide to donate. This government funds comes with government rules concept is not limited to food stamps.
You are right in that I was thinking more along the lines of what a lot of churches call a "food pantry" that is maintained by the church's budget for that in addition to members donating food based on a listed of needed items (I've never seen soda on this list).
However, since you mentioned Food Banks and that tax dollars (government) help fund these as well, soda is also not on the list of items for that.
But SNAP isn’t a donation/charity from the government, it’s an entitlement program. Meaning anyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the program is entitled to receive it.
The government has to ensure that everyone eligible has equal opportunity to apply for and benefit from the program. Many people in this thread have discussed situations where doctors have told them to eat the kinds of foods people are talking about forbidding. Rare or not, entitlement programs need to accommodate people in these situations.
Calling something an entitlement doesn't make it so.
It's charity.
Entitlement is something that has been earned by the recipient or someone associated to them.
This is my number one pet peeve on the subject. SS, Medicare, are entitlements. SNAP, WIC, Medicaid are charity. They may well be the right thing to do, but they aren't entitlements.
And just because a word has been abused for 50 or 60 or 100 years doesn't change reality.
I am calling it an entitlement program because it literally meets the exact definition of an entitlement program. If you disagree take it up with the dictionary? The federal government? Your local HHS office? God? Because SNAP meets the criteria exactly as entitlement program is currently defined.
"entitlement program" doesn't meet the exact literal definition of anything like entitlement.
I decline to participate in your NEWSPEAK.6 -
happytree923 wrote: »
I never said "I" was or even have any desire to choose what other people eat. Just saying that government funds come with government rules and comparing that to my donations = what I decide to donate. This government funds comes with government rules concept is not limited to food stamps.
You are right in that I was thinking more along the lines of what a lot of churches call a "food pantry" that is maintained by the church's budget for that in addition to members donating food based on a listed of needed items (I've never seen soda on this list).
However, since you mentioned Food Banks and that tax dollars (government) help fund these as well, soda is also not on the list of items for that.
But SNAP isn’t a donation/charity from the government, it’s an entitlement program. Meaning anyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the program is entitled to receive it.
The government has to ensure that everyone eligible has equal opportunity to apply for and benefit from the program. Many people in this thread have discussed situations where doctors have told them to eat the kinds of foods people are talking about forbidding. Rare or not, entitlement programs need to accommodate people in these situations.
P.S. most church food pantries get their food from food banks. Unless you know your local food pantry is independent from any regional food bank they are also distributing bulk purchase/USDA food with supplemental donations.
Yes. The church food panties I am thinking of are independent of the regional food banks and like I said come from the church's budget for benevolence (which comes from memeber's contributions) and member's donations of food items.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »
I never said "I" was or even have any desire to choose what other people eat. Just saying that government funds come with government rules and comparing that to my donations = what I decide to donate. This government funds comes with government rules concept is not limited to food stamps.
You are right in that I was thinking more along the lines of what a lot of churches call a "food pantry" that is maintained by the church's budget for that in addition to members donating food based on a listed of needed items (I've never seen soda on this list).
However, since you mentioned Food Banks and that tax dollars (government) help fund these as well, soda is also not on the list of items for that.
But SNAP isn’t a donation/charity from the government, it’s an entitlement program. Meaning anyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the program is entitled to receive it.
The government has to ensure that everyone eligible has equal opportunity to apply for and benefit from the program. Many people in this thread have discussed situations where doctors have told them to eat the kinds of foods people are talking about forbidding. Rare or not, entitlement programs need to accommodate people in these situations.
Calling something an entitlement doesn't make it so.
It's charity.
Entitlement is something that has been earned by the recipient or someone associated to them.
This is my number one pet peeve on the subject. SS, Medicare, are entitlements. SNAP, WIC, Medicaid are charity. They may well be the right thing to do, but they aren't entitlements.
I definitely agree with you about entitlements and even though it's the right thing to do it's not an entitlement.
I don't necessarily agree with calling it "charity", and this is definitely splitting hairs because we seem to be on the same side here, but "charity" implies that the funders (taxpayers) did so willingly and taxes aren't a choice.
Maybe "government mandated charity" would be a better term.
We need a new term. I'm good with "government assistance" I think "being on the dole" is unnecessarily pejorative if the program is in fact temporary. OTOH, if multiple generations are continuously receiving "temporary" "government assistance" There's a very real problem, and "what about the children" isn't the correct response.
Forced sterilization isn't the right solution, but at some point, we have to have a solution that resolves the conflict between serial bastardy and "temporary" programs.
I'm ok with extending the duration of "temporary assistance" being contingent on accepting voluntary surgical NON-RADICAL/theoretically reversible sterilization.3 -
jhildebrandt73 wrote: »The government is trying to do what it can to control the child obesity epidemic. It is obvious that parents are failing to make smart decisions so micro management is the only way. Freedom is a fine thing, but without responsibility it is a detriment.
Things are more complex than just 'parents are failing'. When you have a government that looks the other way when these mega corporations put everything including poison to preserve the shelf life of products and make it so hard for small farmers to compete it costs you an arm and a leg to eat healthy then we shouldnt just pin this on parents. Capitalism ensures profits will be above any health concerns, point blank. Whatever makes the food and drug industry make more money, even if it means more cancer, more diabetes and more obesity, then that is what will happen.
When are shoppers responsible?
Sure, markets are full of things that are bad for you. I've eaten them, others have eaten them, and there are many who are here trying to lose the weight and/or undo the damage.
But I don't blame Hostess or Häagen-Dazs for having been 60 pounds overweight. They didn't hold a gun to my head and say you must eat this. I did it. Multiple college degrees, engineering even, so I could do the basic math needed to calculate caloric needs and consumption. But I was too LAZY to do it. It starts with personal responsibility. I know how to read and can read that a serving of Girl Scout Thin Mints is 4 cookies and that serving is 160 calories, mostly carbs and fat, and oh yeah, 1g of protein. But how many will eat half the box as "a serving?"
We live in an age where the whole of human knowledge is at the fingertips of literally every person in the Western world. There is NO excuse for not knowing what we should and shouldn't eat on a regular basis.
Why do food manufacturers and grocers sell these foods? Because people buy them.
You can tell people to buy real food, from the perimeter of the market and use sparingly the processed items in the center aisles of the stores. But you'll see shopping carts full of cereals, cakes, and no so many fruits, veggies, nuts, fresh meats, fish and dairy.
They will have fruit juice instead of eating fruit.
It's not like apples and oranges and grapes are not in the stores. It's not like there is no fresh spinach or asparagus or green beans in the produce section.
Or even frozen. I keep frozen, cut up peppers in my freezer because they are an easy addition to a morning omelette. But I'll see someone else grabbing a box of frozen waffles to pop in the toaster.
So when do we hold people responsible for their choices?
I keep seeing posts blaming the companies. But it's not like the knowledge isn't out there. When do we start holding people responsible for the choices they make?
I think people would have much less heartburn about how people use assistance if we stopped blaming everyone else for the consequences of personal choice.
It just seems like, and maybe it's the old man "get off my lawn" in me coming out, but it seems like people are less responsible for their choices and we want to blame others. If I'm fat, it's not because I eat crap and don't exercise, it's because of the food industry. If I'm out of work, it's not because I dropped out of school and now I can't find a job, it's the evil corporations. If I don't have any retirement funds, it's not because I bought a new car, boat, motorcycle, world vacations every year instead of saving for retirement, it's those evil Wall Street types who took my money.
And so on....
I personally find it hard to keep coming up with the compassion to help people when there seems to be little or no personal responsibility.7 -
nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I think I've made this observation upthread, but if a business doesn't pay people enough, and they need state support, then that's essentially a subsidy to the business owner. Is it appropriate that the state keeps businesses afloat?4 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I think I've made this observation upthread, but if a business doesn't pay people enough, and they need state support, then that's essentially a subsidy to the business owner. Is it appropriate that the state keeps businesses afloat?
How do you determine whether the fact that a person isn't meeting their subsistence needs is the responsibility of their poor choices or not?
A job that's sufficient to provide for the needs of a college student attending classes will not pay enough to sustain the head of household in a family of 4 or 6 or even 2 or 3.1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I think I've made this observation upthread, but if a business doesn't pay people enough, and they need state support, then that's essentially a subsidy to the business owner. Is it appropriate that the state keeps businesses afloat?
that business should be taxed appropriately to cover the money's taken from the state and then some...for using state money and resources to keep their business afloat. . imo
2 -
happytree923 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »
I never said "I" was or even have any desire to choose what other people eat. Just saying that government funds come with government rules and comparing that to my donations = what I decide to donate. This government funds comes with government rules concept is not limited to food stamps.
You are right in that I was thinking more along the lines of what a lot of churches call a "food pantry" that is maintained by the church's budget for that in addition to members donating food based on a listed of needed items (I've never seen soda on this list).
However, since you mentioned Food Banks and that tax dollars (government) help fund these as well, soda is also not on the list of items for that.
But SNAP isn’t a donation/charity from the government, it’s an entitlement program. Meaning anyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the program is entitled to receive it.
The government has to ensure that everyone eligible has equal opportunity to apply for and benefit from the program. Many people in this thread have discussed situations where doctors have told them to eat the kinds of foods people are talking about forbidding. Rare or not, entitlement programs need to accommodate people in these situations.
Calling something an entitlement doesn't make it so.
It's charity.
Entitlement is something that has been earned by the recipient or someone associated to them.
This is my number one pet peeve on the subject. SS, Medicare, are entitlements. SNAP, WIC, Medicaid are charity. They may well be the right thing to do, but they aren't entitlements.
And just because a word has been abused for 50 or 60 or 100 years doesn't change reality.
I am calling it an entitlement program because it literally meets the exact definition of an entitlement program. If you disagree take it up with the dictionary? The federal government? Your local HHS office? God? Because SNAP meets the criteria exactly as entitlement program is currently defined.
This is true (that it's an entitlement program means nothing about whether someone allegedly "deserves" something or not, in this case it's simply a social safety net). But that it's an entitlement program also says nothing about whether we could decide that SNAP cannot be used to buy soda. Of course we could. Personally, I don't understand why anyone really cares, on either side, but I don't really think of soda as food (I mean, technically it has calories, but as the program doesn't cover lots of things, such as cooked food, I don't see the horror if it doesn't cover soda). Nor do I see any particular benefit of changing the program so that it doesn't cover soda, it's really a so what IMO.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I think I've made this observation upthread, but if a business doesn't pay people enough, and they need state support, then that's essentially a subsidy to the business owner. Is it appropriate that the state keeps businesses afloat?
that business should be taxed appropriately to cover the money's taken from the state.
Any taxes a business pays comes from the monies collected from the goods or services sold/provided.
So folks like you and me ultimately end up paying these taxes. Even when large corporations are considered, the money still comes from the consumer, spelled you and me.
The answer is far more complex than just "tax the businesses."
There are well known precursors to poverty. Not finishing school, having children out of wedlock, drug or alcohol addiction, and criminal convictions are all AVOIDABLE events.
But it seems we are not allowed to talk about this today.
What percentage of poverty would be addressed if the people making the choices listed above would simply choose differently?
I think most are naturally compassionate towards those whom life has kicked them for no good reason, such as disaster, born with physical or mental challenges and so forth. What is harder is how to deal with those who engaged in choices that are known precursors to poverty.
As I said, it's as complicated as society's response to the issue.
2 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I think I've made this observation upthread, but if a business doesn't pay people enough, and they need state support, then that's essentially a subsidy to the business owner. Is it appropriate that the state keeps businesses afloat?
that business should be taxed appropriately to cover the money's taken from the state.
With all the additional frictional cost... That's sensible use of taxpayers equity.
Whilst I'm in the UK, rather than the US, of generally rather see government money spent on something that delivers benefit rather than process.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »
I never said "I" was or even have any desire to choose what other people eat. Just saying that government funds come with government rules and comparing that to my donations = what I decide to donate. This government funds comes with government rules concept is not limited to food stamps.
You are right in that I was thinking more along the lines of what a lot of churches call a "food pantry" that is maintained by the church's budget for that in addition to members donating food based on a listed of needed items (I've never seen soda on this list).
However, since you mentioned Food Banks and that tax dollars (government) help fund these as well, soda is also not on the list of items for that.
But SNAP isn’t a donation/charity from the government, it’s an entitlement program. Meaning anyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the program is entitled to receive it.
The government has to ensure that everyone eligible has equal opportunity to apply for and benefit from the program. Many people in this thread have discussed situations where doctors have told them to eat the kinds of foods people are talking about forbidding. Rare or not, entitlement programs need to accommodate people in these situations.
Calling something an entitlement doesn't make it so.
It's charity.
Entitlement is something that has been earned by the recipient or someone associated to them.
This is my number one pet peeve on the subject. SS, Medicare, are entitlements. SNAP, WIC, Medicaid are charity. They may well be the right thing to do, but they aren't entitlements.
I definitely agree with you about entitlements and even though it's the right thing to do it's not an entitlement.
Technically it is. "Entitlement program" or "it's an entitlement" (referring to such a program) does not mean that someone is morally entitled to something, that's it's not charity also, that they are morally owed it. It merely means that as the program is set up ALL who meet the requirements get (are legally entitled to) the benefits in question.
That's distinct from something like public housing or Section 8, where many more people meet the criteria than are able to/eligible to receive it, as there are huge waiting lists. (This is one reason I think how our housing subsidies work is grossly unfair.)
Anyway, it's technically an entitlement, sure, as in part of an entitlement program to which you are legally entitled (the person giving it out cannot impose additional qualifications), but that means nothing beyond that, and often it gets misunderstood since people seem to claim otherwise. It certainly doesn't mean the gov't can't change the benefits OR the requirements for eligibility.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I think I've made this observation upthread, but if a business doesn't pay people enough, and they need state support, then that's essentially a subsidy to the business owner. Is it appropriate that the state keeps businesses afloat?
No it isn't - it is a subsidy of the life choices that the EMPLOYEE made, not the business owner. Put the responsibility where it belongs. The employer made a contract with the employee - you work for me, I pay you 'x'. As long as the employer keeps up his side of the bargain, he has satisfied his responsibility. Anything beyond that falls squarely on the shoulders of the employee.3 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I think I've made this observation upthread, but if a business doesn't pay people enough, and they need state support, then that's essentially a subsidy to the business owner. Is it appropriate that the state keeps businesses afloat?
No it isn't - it is a subsidy of the life choices that the EMPLOYEE made, not the business owner. Put the responsibility where it belongs. The employer made a contract with the employee - you work for me, I pay you 'x'. As long as the employer keeps up his side of the bargain, he has satisfied his responsibility. Anything beyond that falls squarely on the shoulders of the employee.
I disagree with this completely. business have an obligation to have a social and communal conscious and make the appropriate contribution to its people and community. AND if that company cant do it on their own the gvt has a right and obligation to impose it.
6 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I think I've made this observation upthread, but if a business doesn't pay people enough, and they need state support, then that's essentially a subsidy to the business owner. Is it appropriate that the state keeps businesses afloat?
No it isn't - it is a subsidy of the life choices that the EMPLOYEE made, not the business owner. Put the responsibility where it belongs. The employer made a contract with the employee - you work for me, I pay you 'x'. As long as the employer keeps up his side of the bargain, he has satisfied his responsibility. Anything beyond that falls squarely on the shoulders of the employee.
I disagree with this completely. business have an obligation to have a social and communal conscious and make the appropriate contribution to its people and community. AND if that company cant do it on their own the gvt has a right and obligation to impose it.
How on earth do you impose a communal conscience?
I'm not sure what country you're in, but from the POV of the US system, the government doesn't have the right to impose any sort of communal or civic consciousness on a business. They can step in if harm is being done and enforce actual obligations a business may have, but I don't see anything to support the point of view they have the right to do more than that.2 -
I assume she just means a minimum wage.0
-
stanmann571 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I think I've made this observation upthread, but if a business doesn't pay people enough, and they need state support, then that's essentially a subsidy to the business owner. Is it appropriate that the state keeps businesses afloat?
How do you determine whether the fact that a person isn't meeting their subsistence needs is the responsibility of their poor choices or not?
A job that's sufficient to provide for the needs of a college student attending classes will not pay enough to sustain the head of household in a family of 4 or 6 or even 2 or 3.
Not sure how you define a living wage in the US, but here it's got a specific value, which is regionally adjusted. That does reflect that some jobs aren't going to support a family, so you end up with people needing multiple jobs, with all the challenges that brings.
The points just been made upthread that poverty is complex, and this debate demonstrates both an absence of empathy from many, and a poor understanding.
Personally I'd see more value in spending money on addressing sources of poverty, rather than symptoms. Given very different economies most of the practical observations of make around that don't really apply to the US.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I think I've made this observation upthread, but if a business doesn't pay people enough, and they need state support, then that's essentially a subsidy to the business owner. Is it appropriate that the state keeps businesses afloat?
No it isn't - it is a subsidy of the life choices that the EMPLOYEE made, not the business owner. Put the responsibility where it belongs. The employer made a contract with the employee - you work for me, I pay you 'x'. As long as the employer keeps up his side of the bargain, he has satisfied his responsibility. Anything beyond that falls squarely on the shoulders of the employee.
I disagree with this completely. business have an obligation to have a social and communal conscious and make the appropriate contribution to its people and community. AND if that company cant do it on their own the gvt has a right and obligation to impose it.
How on earth do you impose a communal conscience?
I'm not sure what country you're in, but from the POV of the US system, the government doesn't have the right to impose any sort of communal or civic consciousness on a business. They can step in if harm is being done and enforce actual obligations a business may have, but I don't see anything to support the point of view they have the right to do more than that.
with social laws and addressing wages and omg...take a civics class already.
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions