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
-
livenfree45 wrote: »I'll admit, I'm torn.
I'm less about limiting what they can buy and more about making them earn it, there are too many people on it who do nothing all day except figure out ways to work the system. I'd like to see changes to the system to make it better. Proof that those on it are looking for a job, letters from the a reputable Dr that you are truly disabled, forced birth control on those that keep having babies just to get more money, (yes I'll piss a lot of people off with that one).
In the grand scheme of things, I don't think the government should tell someone they can't buy pop, or candy, they need to work better at getting the benefits to those who really need it, not to those that are just looking for a free handout.
One of my beliefs, and it's just that I admit, is that assistance would be far better if it were coming from those who know you, as local as possible.
Government systems have little or no incentive to get people off of assistance because those administering the programs would lose their jobs if they eliminated poverty.
However, if people had to go to their community, and the resources had to come from the community, there would be far more incentive to help people progress so they don't need the assistance.
Also, since those providing the assistance are local, they would be in a better place to know who is gaming the system and who is in real dire straights. Not to mention, since it's their money, they would have more incentive to actually check on those getting the assistance.
A program administered from a national capitol has little to no hands on knowledge of those getting the assistance in the field.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.
With statements like this....it is very easy to see how fascist regimes get their foot hold.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.
With statements like this....it is very easy to see how fascist regimes get their foot hold.
i feel like i'm in Orwell's 19846 -
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.
Who defines appropriate?
That's a problem for me an a free society when a third party, or even "the majority" would define what is appropriate for me to give to others.
In a free society, it is inappropriate to demand organizations give to others.
Because you end up with those on the right who will claim, "For the greater good..." when demanding government ban same sex marriage.
Or those on the left who will claim, "For the greater good..." when demanding government ban keeping more than X amount of your income.
The only obligation government has is to provide a framework where people can live freely in peace. If one harms another, there is a court system to work out the damages.
It's not the job of the government to redistribute the fruits of one man's labor, or one corporation's profits and hand them out to others.5 -
deannalfisher 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.
With statements like this....it is very easy to see how fascist regimes get their foot hold.
i feel like i'm in Orwell's 1984
you two guys are too funny...who ended slavery? THE GOVERNMENT...the government DOES impose social norms and community contributions either by law or PRESSURE or money. right now social norms and community contributions are being changed and pushed backwards...by our new president and his business buddies - where do you live under a rock?
4 -
you two guys are too funny...who ended slavery? THE GOVERNMENT...the government DOES impose social norms and community contributions either by law or PRESSURE. where do you live under a rock.
I don't think people are against government addressing injustice. Slavery was an injustice, period. If XYZ corporation builds a better mousetrap and makes billions of dollars, you not earning those billions is NOT an injustice.
The problem is, as described above, when "the greater good..." is defined by majority rule. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Freedom is the foundation of this nation. And in the case of slavery, the bar was missed, and needed correction.
However, someone not having health insurance is not an injustice. Someone not wishing to provide food stamps to the person faking a disability is not an injustice.
Having another define your values, such as how you should spend your money is closer to slavery than it is justice.
7 -
deannalfisher 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.
With statements like this....it is very easy to see how fascist regimes get their foot hold.
i feel like i'm in Orwell's 1984
you two guys are too funny...who ended slavery? THE GOVERNMENT...the government DOES impose social norms and community contributions either by law or PRESSURE or money. right now social norms and community contributions are being changed and pushed backwards...by our new president and his business buddies - where do you live under a rock?
have you actually READ 1984...trust me when i say the society we live in today could easily be parlayed into that book...
specific quotes (taken from Goodreads):
“Big Brother is Watching You.”
“So long as they (the Proles) continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern...Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult.”
“It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.”
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
4 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
you two guys are too funny...who ended slavery? THE GOVERNMENT...the government DOES impose social norms and community contributions either by law or PRESSURE. where do you live under a rock.
Having another define your values, such as how you should spend your money is closer to slavery than it is justice.
Except in the case of food stamps, it's not their money. It's welfare and provided by the government, paid for by taxpayers. I believe Food stamps should be restricted to more nutritional foods just as the WIC program does. The WIC program does not turn women, infants, and children into slaves. Food stamps are only a supplement to a person's food supply. It is not and was never meant to be the sole provider of a person's monthly food budget.5 -
Except in the case of food stamps, it's not their money. It's welfare and provided by the government, paid for by taxpayers. I believe Food stamps should be restricted to more nutritional foods just as the WIC program does. The WIC program does not turn women, infants, and children into slaves. Food stamps are only a supplement to a person's food supply. It is not and was never meant to be the sole provider of a person's monthly food budget.
Isn't it the people's money? That money has to come from somewhere. Taking it from one to give to another IS IMPOSING VALUES. It's saying we are better at deciding how you should support someone than you are, so we are going to take from you and give to others. (Not to mention it buys them votes with your tax dollars.)
Look, if you want to write checks to the treasury and fund political efforts to win votes, I'd not stop you. I'd rather funnel my charitable contributions through other means.4 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »
No it's actually easy you don't need proof you pay for everything they take your word and have no idea if our parents are helping you out and can't proove how much you make or anything. All they asked for was proof of rent statement everything else they just asked me and relied on me telling the truth.TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »Student benefits. It's not that easy to get "food stamps". You have to prove that you are independent from your parents and live alone on a very small paycheck/salary. Pay your own bills/rent. File taxes as such. You cannot have too much money in savings/checking or a car that is too high in value (I think under 2 grand). You actually have to be very poor.
It can be done if you have smart parents that really know how to hide money well, but all this for $200 a month? Federal Fraud risk? Jail time and fines?
depends on the state you are in. here in wv you have to provide proof of income,bills,etc1 -
Yes, the government reflects the values of the population.
One of our values--and also self interest, as it makes the overall society better--is that having a safety net is better than a society where the consequences of losing a job or not being adequately prepared for a job (typically due to upbringing) or a bad business decision or inopportune accident or illness = disaster or dependence on convincing private parties to give you stuff.
This is the basis of things like Social Security and Medicare. It's also (although the programs are different) the basis for things like unemployment payments, food stamps (SNAP), the earned income tax credit, and various other gov't aid (from student loans to housing subsidies).
I don't like how all of them are administered, but I wouldn't want to live in a society that didn't have those kinds of protections. Obviously some disagree, that's why we vote and why our elected representatives vote.1 -
deannalfisher 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.
With statements like this....it is very easy to see how fascist regimes get their foot hold.
i feel like i'm in Orwell's 1984
you two guys are too funny...who ended slavery? THE GOVERNMENT...the government DOES impose social norms and community contributions either by law or PRESSURE or money. right now social norms and community contributions are being changed and pushed backwards...by our new president and his business buddies - where do you live under a rock?
...but you believe you can forcibly take the labor of one man to give to another?
Sounds like you would have been on the losing side of that war.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, the government reflects the values of the population.
One of our values--and also self interest, as it makes the overall society better--is that having a safety net is better than a society where the consequences of losing a job or not being adequately prepared for a job (typically due to upbringing) or a bad business decision or inopportune accident or illness = disaster or dependence on convincing private parties to give you stuff.
This is the basis of things like Social Security and Medicare. It's also (although the programs are different) the basis for things like unemployment payments, food stamps (SNAP), the earned income tax credit, and various other gov't aid (from student loans to housing subsidies).
I don't like how all of them are administered, but I wouldn't want to live in a society that didn't have those kinds of protections. Obviously some disagree, that's why we vote and why our elected representatives vote.
So make them optional?
If you think Social Security is a good idea, I would never prevent you from having FICA taxes taken from your paycheck. But let others who believe differently have the freedom to do otherwise.
Ditto for food stamps. If you think DC and the Department of Agriculture have the best program going, check off a contribution when you file your taxes. If I don't, then let me go my way.
I'm not against most programs. I'm against being coerced to fund them. If you want to have them, have them. If you want to fund them, fund them. But don't put others on the hook to fund your values.
I say the same to those on the right who would have their vision of the greater good funded at taxpayer expense as well.
If some business tax credit is such a good idea, let all the other businesses and people who would benefit collect their funds and send them the money. No need to involve the taxpayer or the DC gang.5 -
Why do people care so much? Is it jealousy? You can't afford to buy soda? Or do you think because you're above the poverty line, only you get to enjoy treats. It's dumb. I can think of 10 worse things our taxes pay for. If people on foodstamps want to waste their budget with soda and snicker bars, be my guest. I'm not the one who has to shop or try to make it through the month after I blow my food stamps on junk food. What else do you want the government to tell poor people they can't do? Do you want them only shopping at thrift stores? Can't have poor people at Walmart buying the same crap as you, right? lol8
-
It's interesting - I was listening to NPR this morning and they announced that there's a Farm Bill in congress that is supposedly looking to cut funding to the SNAP program and how the big grocery chains were up in arms over the potential for lost revenue. So who's really being subsidized with this program?
I'd like to see some stats regarding how many people have actually been helped (defined as using it infrequently and for a short periods as intended) vs. how many are using it 'generationally' vs. how much grocery chains, etc. profit by it.
It would really make me sick to see any kind of a statistical story that would indicate that large numbers of Americans are being made dependent on government programs in order to fatten up some crony's bottom line, but I wouldn't be surprised.0 -
SimplyAdia wrote: »Why do people care so much? Is it jealousy? You can't afford to buy soda? Or do you think because you're above the poverty line, only you get to enjoy treats. It's dumb. I can think of 10 worse things our taxes pay for. If people on foodstamps want to waste their budget with soda and snicker bars, be my guest. I'm not the one who has to shop or try to make it through the month after I blow my food stamps on junk food. What else do you want the government to tell poor people they can't do? Do you want them only shopping at thrift stores? Can't have poor people at Walmart buying the same crap as you, right? lol
Call me crazy, but I think a program with "Supplemental Nutrition" in the name should actually go for supplemental nutrition.
As has been pointed out many times, this program is intended to help stretch user's food dollars so that no one goes hungry. If all your nutritional needs are met up to the point of soda, then I think the program has done it's job - anything beyond that is a demonstrative waste of resources - THAT'S why people care.
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.
With statements like this....it is very easy to see how fascist regimes get their foot hold.
I've been tempted to invoke Godwin a few times in this debate. fwiw I'm not entirely sure who got there first.1 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »It's interesting - I was listening to NPR this morning and they announced that there's a Farm Bill in congress that is supposedly looking to cut funding to the SNAP program and how the big grocery chains were up in arms over the potential for lost revenue. So who's really being subsidized with this program?
I'd like to see some stats regarding how many people have actually been helped (defined as using it infrequently and for a short periods as intended) vs. how many are using it 'generationally' vs. how much grocery chains, etc. profit by it.
It would really make me sick to see any kind of a statistical story that would indicate that large numbers of Americans are being made dependent on government programs in order to fatten up some crony's bottom line, but I wouldn't be surprised.
This is much of the problem at hand and so large that no one really grasps the level of corruption, but it boils down to "I don't like other people's benefit's, but I deserve mine". The only logical response is that no one gets benefits. This is a harsh lesson in reality that government should focus on what it can maintain - defense of nation and rule of law. Government cannot by nature act as Robin Hood without becoming the Sheriff of Nottingham.2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, the government reflects the values of the population.
One of our values--and also self interest, as it makes the overall society better--is that having a safety net is better than a society where the consequences of losing a job or not being adequately prepared for a job (typically due to upbringing) or a bad business decision or inopportune accident or illness = disaster or dependence on convincing private parties to give you stuff.
This is the basis of things like Social Security and Medicare. It's also (although the programs are different) the basis for things like unemployment payments, food stamps (SNAP), the earned income tax credit, and various other gov't aid (from student loans to housing subsidies).
I don't like how all of them are administered, but I wouldn't want to live in a society that didn't have those kinds of protections. Obviously some disagree, that's why we vote and why our elected representatives vote.
So make them optional?
A safety net doesn't work if it's optional, and that ignores the fact that you starving on the street affects other people.
There's lots of things the gov't pays for that I don't like either; it's the price of having a government, even a community.4 -
That SNAP is tied to the Farm Bill is actually one of the stupider aspects of how we handle this.
We have a debate about cutting it every time the Farm Bill is up (and a debate about how farm subsidies are handled).1
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