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
-
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 -
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.
Absolutely not! The only obligations that the business has are to pay it's own debts (inventory, contracts, etc), pay it's employees and in the case of a company that sells stock (shares of itself), to make a fair return on the stock. Anything beyond this is the choice of the owners and is not something that should be forced upon the company by the public or the government.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 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 don't really agree with this either...I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to. we all prospered. I did not go out of business bc of paying people fair wages I went out of business WHEN GREEDY CORPORATE PEOPLE AND POLICTICIANS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY IN 2008-9-10 bush era destroyed our business landscape and real estate industry.
So they were adding a hypothetical $10 an hour to your business and you paid them $50.
You went out of business because you were bad at business.
I was in business 30 years. and you cant add..omg. are you a bush fan?
50 is 5 times 10.
You said you paid 5 times what you had to. That means you paid 5 times what they were worth.
"years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what" cant read or add huh.I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to
IF you want quality people what you "have to pay them" is at or above market value. My market value is $45-65 an hour, and I add 75-200 an hour of value.
If you want someone with my skills, you "have to pay" ~50 an hour. 4-5 times that is 200-250 an hour.
The same principle applies if the market value of a person is $8 or $10 or $3.
You seem confused by basic principles of hiring and personnel management.
if the wage I had to pay was 10 bucks an hour...and I paid 14 - 15 an hour..would be $4- 5 more and hour than i had to" that would be a living wage.
$14 or $15 an hour might be a living wage for a single person, it is not a living wage for a family of 4 (w/o some outside assistance).
Then one shouldn't make themselves into a family of four until they can afford it.7 -
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.
I was history/political science double major and I'm still not fully understanding what you're saying.
If you're arguing that this "communal conscience" is around the area of minimum wages, then I do understand what you're saying. If the argument is that the government has the right and the obligation to impose a communal conscience generally, then I don't understand. Businesses don't have an obligation to support their communities (although some choose to do so) and they are under no obligation to pay an "appropriate" wage, just a minimum one (although I guess we could quibble and say that whatever the government sets as the minimum wage is the one they determine is "appropriate").1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 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 don't really agree with this either...I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to. we all prospered. I did not go out of business bc of paying people fair wages I went out of business WHEN GREEDY CORPORATE PEOPLE AND POLICTICIANS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY IN 2008-9-10 bush era destroyed our business landscape and real estate industry.
So they were adding a hypothetical $10 an hour to your business and you paid them $50.
You went out of business because you were bad at business.
I was in business 30 years. and you cant add..omg. are you a bush fan?
50 is 5 times 10.
You said you paid 5 times what you had to. That means you paid 5 times what they were worth.
"years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what" cant read or add huh.I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to
IF you want quality people what you "have to pay them" is at or above market value. My market value is $45-65 an hour, and I add 75-200 an hour of value.
If you want someone with my skills, you "have to pay" ~50 an hour. 4-5 times that is 200-250 an hour.
The same principle applies if the market value of a person is $8 or $10 or $3.
You seem confused by basic principles of hiring and personnel management.
if the wage I had to pay was 10 bucks an hour...and I paid 14 - 15 an hour..would be $4- 5 more and hour than i had to" that would be a living wage.
$14 or $15 an hour might be a living wage for a single person, it is not a living wage for a family of 4 (w/o some outside assistance).
Then one shouldn't make themselves into a family of four until they can afford it.
Which was my point - thanks for putting it so succinctly.
2 -
This content has been removed.
-
One of the problems with minimum wage laws is they can often hurt the unskilled poor more. If the wage floor is artificially set to $15/hour, workers who may not be tempted to take the job at $8/hour are now enticed to take the job at $15/hour.
That person who dropped out of high school and gets confused when they ring up your order and it's 9.79 and they see that $10 bill you pull out of your wallet, key it in, THEN you grab four pennies because you want a solid quarter, may not have $15/hour in skills. (I had this very person last week down new San Antonio, TX who was was confused when I gave him $20.10 for a $10.05 total. I really didn't want another $0.90 in change and a bunch of bills. He tried to give me $9.85 in change because he was confused by the extra 0.10 after he keyed in the $20.)
So is that person worth $15/hour if what I experienced wasn't just a bad day, but his grasp of simple math?
Others, who sit on the sidelines looking for more skilled work just may be enticed to take that job if $15/hour is offered.
So what happens to the low skilled worker when he is priced out of the labor market? When his skills don't add up to what an employer must pay?
Or is the job replaced by automation? I see more and more ordering kiosks in places where someone would take your order.
Visited a casino where there where no human dealers, just automated blackjack tables where everyone sits before a big screen animated "dealer."
Not sure raising minimum wages is going to fix this. It may just make things worse for lower skilled workers.
4 -
tbright1965 wrote: »One of the problems with minimum wage laws is they can often hurt the unskilled poor more. If the wage floor is artificially set to $15/hour, workers who may not be tempted to take the job at $8/hour are now enticed to take the job at $15/hour.
That person who dropped out of high school and gets confused when they ring up your order and it's 9.79 and they see that $10 bill you pull out of your wallet, key it in, THEN you grab four pennies because you want a solid quarter, may not have $15/hour in skills. (I had this very person last week down new San Antonio, TX who was was confused when I gave him $20.10 for a $10.05 total. I really didn't want another $0.90 in change and a bunch of bills. He tried to give me $9.85 in change because he was confused by the extra 0.10 after he keyed in the $20.)
So is that person worth $15/hour if what I experienced wasn't just a bad day, but his grasp of simple math?
Others, who sit on the sidelines looking for more skilled work just may be enticed to take that job if $15/hour is offered.
So what happens to the low skilled worker when he is priced out of the labor market? When his skills don't add up to what an employer must pay?
Or is the job replaced by automation? I see more and more ordering kiosks in places where someone would take your order.
Visited a casino where there where no human dealers, just automated blackjack tables where everyone sits before a big screen animated "dealer."
Not sure raising minimum wages is going to fix this. It may just make things worse for lower skilled workers.
Raising minimum wages will not fix this issue and is already causing backlash from businesses - look at the kiosks that are being installed in businesses (McDonald's already has a stated business goal to automate as much as it possibly can). This isn't only happening in the fast food business - the local emergency room (and most of the stand-alone clinics around me) already have kiosks that can be used for check-in purposes.2 -
caymanbound109 wrote: »I've stayed out of this "discussion" for a long time. So, if I've paid in to the "system" and need to use it, I'm supposed to let someone else tell me what I can buy with my SNAP funds? Did I get that right?
SNAP has nothing to do with paying into the system, and we ALREADY tell people what they can buy with their SNAP funds.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
caymanbound109 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »caymanbound109 wrote: »I've stayed out of this "discussion" for a long time. So, if I've paid in to the "system" and need to use it, I'm supposed to let someone else tell me what I can buy with my SNAP funds? Did I get that right?
SNAP has nothing to do with paying into the system, and we ALREADY tell people what they can buy with their SNAP funds.
What I meant was that I work and pay taxes and at one time, I needed to use Food Stamps. You can buy pretty much anything with those funds (I didn't have cash benefits) except for household items and alcohol. No, I wasn't told what I could and could not buy (referring to soda and "junk" food).
There are some restrictions on what kind of food you can purchase with SNAP. For example, you can't buy hot, ready-to-eat food.0 -
The church food panties
Best line in this conversation so far though. And possibly in MFP ever. I really love you guys sometimes.
I'm not sure why you would find that funny anyway, but if you look back at what I originally said, you will see that I was referring to it as what the church(es) call "food pantries" and I put it quotes to show that I am not the one who decided to call it that.
Calling it a "church food pantry" was actually initiated by someone else who replied to me, and I just gave that term back to them when I responded back.
Either way, I'm not sure why you would make fun of that...
Just for you, I will refer to it as a large closet with shelving filled with food that some churches keep stocked for the purpose of providing food to community members who need it.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?
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.
Ah yes. Choices courtesy of Hobson, because there only ever one route into poverty...
If only everything was so simple!2 -
The church food panties
Best line in this conversation so far though. And possibly in MFP ever. I really love you guys sometimes.
I'm not sure why you would find that funny anyway, but if you look back at what I originally said, you will see that I was referring to it as what the church(es) call "food pantries" and I put it quotes to show that I am not the one who decided to call it that.
Calling it a "church food pantry" was actually initiated by someone else who replied to me, and I just gave that term back to them when I responded back.
Either way, I'm not sure why you would make fun of that...
Just for you, I will refer to it as a large closet with shelving filled with food that some churches keep stocked for the purpose of providing food to community members who need it.
He wasn't making fun of church pantries - go back and look at the spelling in the original post...3 -
@newmeadow. Sorry to have gotten so irritated. I did not see the original typo.0
-
http://www.king5.com/mobile/article/news/florida-bill-would-prevent-buying-soft-drinks-with-food-stamps/281-466529691
getting back on point. no I don't think food stamps should be used to buy soda...junk food etc. no. and I do support having new laws the require drug testing for welfare and ebt recipients.4 -
The church food panties
Best line in this conversation so far though. And possibly in MFP ever. I really love you guys sometimes.
I'm not sure why you would find that funny anyway, but if you look back at what I originally said, you will see that I was referring to it as what the church(es) call "food pantries" and I put it quotes to show that I am not the one who decided to call it that.
Calling it a "church food pantry" was actually initiated by someone else who replied to me, and I just gave that term back to them when I responded back.
Either way, I'm not sure why you would make fun of that...
Just for you, I will refer to it as a large closet with shelving filled with food that some churches keep stocked for the purpose of providing food to community members who need it.
I didn't mean it maliciously and I anonymously quoted it. I didn't put your user name in the quote. I just found it very funny in a naughty word quip kind of way. I know it was a typo. We all make them, including me. But sorry, I still think it's a hoot.
Earlier in the thread, I mentioned the food pantry in my church takes tax payer dollars to keep it stocked, according to one of the priests who runs it. I have no problem with churches or food pantries and I'm not making fun of either. Personally I would prefer that if church pantries are partially or predominantly tax payer funded, that should be made clear to parishioners when written appeals are made for donation. In the interest of fair play.
I think a lot of people don’t realize their local food pantry is supported by a regional food bank and/or public money because they don’t publicize it. It’s easy to assume a pantry has no outside affiliations if the pantry doesn’t display other org’s logos or share real estate but they often have financial support outside parishioners. None of this is to knock food pantries, but they do tend to provide less nutritious food than one could buy with SNAP.1 -
I went to Walmart in an urban area last night because I ran out of puppy pads and the pet store was closed. I was approached 2 different times on my way in the store and while fetching a cart, if I would be willing to let them pay for my food on their food stamp card and in return if I could give them 50 % of the total in cash.
Each time I declined and said that I was not even buying food, just puppy supplies and that they should feed their kids with the EBT card instead.
I told the clerk and she said " yep the first week of the month is always flooded with people trying to sell their food stamps for cash. "
It's a shame to see it and such a smack in the face to those tax payers that help fund it. Fwiw I was leaving my accountants office late so didn't get a chance to run to the pet store. I can barely make my tax payments but people can so blatantly abuse the system. I don't care if it's only a dollar of my money that funded that, it's still a smack in the face.10 -
happytree923 wrote: »The church food panties
Best line in this conversation so far though. And possibly in MFP ever. I really love you guys sometimes.
I'm not sure why you would find that funny anyway, but if you look back at what I originally said, you will see that I was referring to it as what the church(es) call "food pantries" and I put it quotes to show that I am not the one who decided to call it that.
Calling it a "church food pantry" was actually initiated by someone else who replied to me, and I just gave that term back to them when I responded back.
Either way, I'm not sure why you would make fun of that...
Just for you, I will refer to it as a large closet with shelving filled with food that some churches keep stocked for the purpose of providing food to community members who need it.
I didn't mean it maliciously and I anonymously quoted it. I didn't put your user name in the quote. I just found it very funny in a naughty word quip kind of way. I know it was a typo. We all make them, including me. But sorry, I still think it's a hoot.
Earlier in the thread, I mentioned the food pantry in my church takes tax payer dollars to keep it stocked, according to one of the priests who runs it. I have no problem with churches or food pantries and I'm not making fun of either. Personally I would prefer that if church pantries are partially or predominantly tax payer funded, that should be made clear to parishioners when written appeals are made for donation. In the interest of fair play.
I think a lot of people don’t realize their local food pantry is supported by a regional food bank and/or public money because they don’t publicize it. It’s easy to assume a pantry has no outside affiliations if the pantry doesn’t display other org’s logos or share real estate but they often have financial support outside parishioners. None of this is to knock food pantries, but they do tend to provide less nutritious food than one could buy with SNAP.
Also, when appeals to donate to pantries are designed to sound desperate and play heavily on the emotion of guilt, it's a tad bit sobering when one finds out it's stocked using the dollars that come out of one's paycheck in the first place. I think they don't publicize this for as reason and I understand why. But I think Churches especially have the obligation to be completely transparent about how their pantries are funded. Because getting double dipped on may be a legitimate source of annoyance to those not in the know, especially after the fact.
I’m as bleeding heart as they come and I am happy to have my tax dollars go to the same organizations I donate to but my main quibble with this is how inefficient it is. It is a lot cheaper to give people EBT cards to buy groceries than to build a food bank, stock it, recruit a church to distribute, have the church use time and money to pick up the food, stock their pantry, and pay to have the building open twice a week. I know people worry about fraud with EBT but fraud happens with food pantries too (picking up more than allowed, selling food etc). Plus there is way less fresh food available at a pantry so you end up using tax money to give people more of the foods some want to ban from SNAP.2 -
happytree923 wrote: »The church food panties
Best line in this conversation so far though. And possibly in MFP ever. I really love you guys sometimes.
I'm not sure why you would find that funny anyway, but if you look back at what I originally said, you will see that I was referring to it as what the church(es) call "food pantries" and I put it quotes to show that I am not the one who decided to call it that.
Calling it a "church food pantry" was actually initiated by someone else who replied to me, and I just gave that term back to them when I responded back.
Either way, I'm not sure why you would make fun of that...
Just for you, I will refer to it as a large closet with shelving filled with food that some churches keep stocked for the purpose of providing food to community members who need it.
I didn't mean it maliciously and I anonymously quoted it. I didn't put your user name in the quote. I just found it very funny in a naughty word quip kind of way. I know it was a typo. We all make them, including me. But sorry, I still think it's a hoot.
Earlier in the thread, I mentioned the food pantry in my church takes tax payer dollars to keep it stocked, according to one of the priests who runs it. I have no problem with churches or food pantries and I'm not making fun of either. Personally I would prefer that if church pantries are partially or predominantly tax payer funded, that should be made clear to parishioners when written appeals are made for donation. In the interest of fair play.
I think a lot of people don’t realize their local food pantry is supported by a regional food bank and/or public money because they don’t publicize it. It’s easy to assume a pantry has no outside affiliations if the pantry doesn’t display other org’s logos or share real estate but they often have financial support outside parishioners. None of this is to knock food pantries, but they do tend to provide less nutritious food than one could buy with SNAP.
Also, when appeals to donate to pantries are designed to sound desperate and play heavily on the emotion of guilt, it's a tad bit sobering when one finds out it's stocked using the dollars that come out of one's paycheck in the first place. I think they don't publicize this for as reason and I understand why. But I think Churches especially have the obligation to be completely transparent about how their pantries are funded. Because getting double dipped on may be a legitimate source of annoyance to those not in the know, especially after the fact.
I agree that they should be up front about it if taxes are helping to fund it.
In my case, our church does not rely on tax funding and is not connected with the local food bank and do our own fundraising for any programs. I know a little about how this runs as my father was involved with a lot of the fundraising. There aren't any desperate pleas for item donations either, just a list of stuff they are accepting.
0 -
ok wow I've got 5 kids and they all eat super healthy for super cheap but I also splurge every so often on snacks because yes kids need that occasional snack. When I was in the hospital with my 5th child with H.E.L.P disease (and this baby was actually a very unexpected surprise being that my tubes were tied 5 years earlier with what I thought was gonna be my last child) and my husband who worked for a company for 18 years the owner died and the wife closed shop at the exact same time as Im in a hospital bed for my whole third trimester we had to get some government help which we had never done before because we had 4 kids at home and Im not able to work due to complications and it took a couple months for my husband to find another job but there are legit people that get help only when they need it and dont scam to get it and I believe the food is based on a family budget of that size and if you go by the USDA website you will see you can stretch what they give you plus by what they know you make and what they deduct you might be able to afford some food with what you make as long as you are budgeting right things should work out. But restricting more than they should is pointless and people who are going to commit fraud will do it with or without restrictions those types of people seem to always find a way than ruin it for people with real situations that need real help.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions