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
-
That's the price of handling it in DC instead of the local community. If the money had to come from your neighbors/community, the people actually providing the money would have a good idea of someone was really down on their luck or making assistance their vocation.
My wife is a social worker and she encounters both.
Help those who are suffering a temporary setback. Few have issues with that. Most have issues with those who make getting assistance a career choice.
Most people work too hard for their money to have it frittered away by those who work the system.
4 -
tbright1965 wrote: »That's the price of handling it in DC instead of the local community. If the money had to come from your neighbors/community, the people actually providing the money would have a good idea of someone was really down on their luck or making assistance their vocation.
Equally it makes it much easier to deny support to those whose eyes are too close together, or have a lifestyle that people disapprove of. There is a lot of value in having this kind of thing managed by a dispassionate system.
6 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »That's the price of handling it in DC instead of the local community. If the money had to come from your neighbors/community, the people actually providing the money would have a good idea of someone was really down on their luck or making assistance their vocation.
Equally it makes it much easier to deny support to those whose eyes are too close together, or have a lifestyle that people disapprove of. There is a lot of value in having this kind of thing managed by a dispassionate system.
But does that outweigh lack of incentives for getting people off of support? If those administering the programs will be out of work if no one needs the program, will it ever be shut down? If political representatives can hide any waste, fraud and abuse by suggesting it's the other guy, will it ever be reformed?
Like I said, if you want to voluntarily contribute to a DC managed program, knock yourself out. For those of us who think these things are better managed locally, let us send our dollars as we see fit instead of having them go through the political process with all the pitfalls that process entails.
2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »That's the price of handling it in DC instead of the local community. If the money had to come from your neighbors/community, the people actually providing the money would have a good idea of someone was really down on their luck or making assistance their vocation.
Equally it makes it much easier to deny support to those whose eyes are too close together, or have a lifestyle that people disapprove of. There is a lot of value in having this kind of thing managed by a dispassionate system.
But does that outweigh lack of incentives for getting people off of support?
Nobody has offered anything except anecdata suggesting that there aren't.
I commented upthread that here in the UK those areas where there is systemic generational dependence tend to be those that have never recovered from the collapse of mineral recovery and heavy manufacturing in the 70s and 80s. We've still got economic black holes where no alternative exists.If those administering the programs will be out of work if no one needs the program, will it ever be shut down? If political representatives can hide any waste, fraud and abuse by suggesting it's the other guy, will it ever be reformed?
Tin foil hats all round.
And county clerks refusing service when they think their imaginary friend wouldn't like it.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?
...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.
I have never been on welfare, food stamps or any other kind of assistance. so no I am not losing any war. READ CURRANT EVENTS...that should help you.
0 -
How many steps are any of us away from needing financial and emotional support. Life changing consequences of a major road accident or life threatening illness, divorce or being thrown out by a past partner, workplaces closing under one with not hope of other employment, even leaving the military with post traumatic stress. Why not be generous, give support to facilitate a phoenix rising from the pain for the benefit of one an all, rather than compound the indignities. there but for..................................................
Help people regain their self respect and equip them to be able to pay tax again.6 -
I see nothing wrong with stating that the food purchased with food stamps fit a certain criteria. It's free money for food to feed families. Food stamps are meant to be supplemental, not replace a food budget. In 1999, I became a single mother of 4. After a broken ear drum, disclocated jaw, more bruises and "falls" than I can count I had finally had enough. Feeding a family of five on one income is difficult! For the first time in my life, I accepted assistance. I felt that extra money was to feed my kids at nutritionally as I could. I bought staples like milk, eggs, bread, fruits, vegetables, and meat. I never bought chips, snacks, soda or luxury items like steak. It was my belief that my own paycheck should buy the extras. If I couldn't afford them, we didn't have them. That was just my thought process. After nine months, I figured out a budget that worked for me and stopped accepting help. Others may disagree and say that they should have the right to treats like everyone else. I feel that if they want those extras, they pay for them with earned money.6
-
How many steps are any of us away from needing financial and emotional support. Life changing consequences of a major road accident or life threatening illness, divorce or being thrown out by a past partner, workplaces closing under one with not hope of other employment, even leaving the military with post traumatic stress. Why not be generous, give support to facilitate a phoenix rising from the pain for the benefit of one an all, rather than compound the indignities. there but for..................................................
Help people regain their self respect and equip them to be able to pay tax again.
And restricting the use of foodstamps to nutrient dense items would help ensure recipients get the most benefit from the program.4 -
debrakgoogins wrote: »I see nothing wrong with stating that the food purchased with food stamps fit a certain criteria. It's free money for food to feed families. Food stamps are meant to be supplemental, not replace a food budget. In 1999, I became a single mother of 4. After a broken ear drum, disclocated jaw, more bruises and "falls" than I can count I had finally had enough. Feeding a family of five on one income is difficult! For the first time in my life, I accepted assistance. I felt that extra money was to feed my kids at nutritionally as I could. I bought staples like milk, eggs, bread, fruits, vegetables, and meat. I never bought chips, snacks, soda or luxury items like steak. It was my belief that my own paycheck should buy the extras. If I couldn't afford them, we didn't have them. That was just my thought process. After nine months, I figured out a budget that worked for me and stopped accepting help. Others may disagree and say that they should have the right to treats like everyone else. I feel that if they want those extras, they pay for them with earned money.
Good for you. In my mind that is how the process should work in the majority of cases.0 -
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.
I have never been on welfare, food stamps or any other kind of assistance. so no I am not losing any war. READ CURRANT EVENTS...that should help you.
Currant events? Like wine tastings?
I'm in!5 -
Moby has a contribution to the debate: https://www.wsj.com/articles/food-stamps-shouldnt-pay-for-junk-1523315448
Note, this is behind a paywall. I read it on my phone but I can't find a non-paywall link at the moment.0 -
100_PROOF_ wrote: »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.
It's a smack in the face unless the items they want to buy with your cash are things like toilet paper, laundry detergent, and diapers. Some people abuse the system to go buy things like alcohol, cigarettes, etc., but some use that money to buy other essentials that EBT won't pay for.3 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »That's the price of handling it in DC instead of the local community. If the money had to come from your neighbors/community, the people actually providing the money would have a good idea of someone was really down on their luck or making assistance their vocation.
Equally it makes it much easier to deny support to those whose eyes are too close together, or have a lifestyle that people disapprove of. There is a lot of value in having this kind of thing managed by a dispassionate system.
Also, there are often poor communities where a large part of the population there needs support. If it's not drawing from a larger area with more affluent communities, where does the money come from? I'm not religious, but there's that bible story about that woman giving her only two gems or whatever as a donation, and people jump on her for not giving enough, and Jesus jumps on them because she gave everything she had. Good for her. That said, poor people giving everything they have isn't enough, no matter how generous their hearts. Wealthy people giving just some of what they have is what makes these programs work, even if they are forced to give. Given the choice, I'd stop paying taxes until we shut down half of our military bases abroad and cut back our defense spending until it's not bigger than Russia's, China's, Saudi Arabia, France, and the next five other countries combined, but I don't get to choose where my taxes go, and neither do you.5 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »That's the price of handling it in DC instead of the local community. If the money had to come from your neighbors/community, the people actually providing the money would have a good idea of someone was really down on their luck or making assistance their vocation.
Equally it makes it much easier to deny support to those whose eyes are too close together, or have a lifestyle that people disapprove of. There is a lot of value in having this kind of thing managed by a dispassionate system.
But does that outweigh lack of incentives for getting people off of support?
Nobody has offered anything except anecdata suggesting that there aren't.
I commented upthread that here in the UK those areas where there is systemic generational dependence tend to be those that have never recovered from the collapse of mineral recovery and heavy manufacturing in the 70s and 80s. We've still got economic black holes where no alternative exists.If those administering the programs will be out of work if no one needs the program, will it ever be shut down? If political representatives can hide any waste, fraud and abuse by suggesting it's the other guy, will it ever be reformed?
Tin foil hats all round.
And county clerks refusing service when they think their imaginary friend wouldn't like it.
^ speaking of tin foil hats. Afraid the local officials won't give the aid.
That's my argument. Take it out of the hands of the politically motivated and support those who support your values.
You made my point. Helping one another is too important to be left to bureaucrats and politicians.2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Take it out of the hands of the politically motivated and support those who support your values.
Take it away from one instance of political control, and give it to a different instance of political control that's more to your liking.
What about those who don't share your values? Just leave them to fend for themselves?
If I might use an example, single veteran with two kids. Deserving or undeserving poor?
I would observe that in the US political influence in the machinery of the state is far deeper than elsewhere. Most liberal democracies manage to separate the business of government from the politics. To the extent where politicians interfering in local service delivery is newsworthy.
I'd also note that whilst you've got an institutional separation of church and state, the penetration of conservative christianity into your machinery of government is quite astounding.10 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »That's the price of handling it in DC instead of the local community. If the money had to come from your neighbors/community, the people actually providing the money would have a good idea of someone was really down on their luck or making assistance their vocation.
Equally it makes it much easier to deny support to those whose eyes are too close together, or have a lifestyle that people disapprove of. There is a lot of value in having this kind of thing managed by a dispassionate system.
Also, there are often poor communities where a large part of the population there needs support.
I wouldn't disagree. In my later post I've noted that in the UK many of the areas where we have systemic poverty are subject to community poverty; poor educational attainment, higher levels of abortion, high levels of public health issues, frequently a skewed demographic where potential earners move away from the area.
I know from my own experience, having grown up in one of those areas there is nothing that would encourage me to go back. School friends who never managed to break out are now in a situation where they're never going to.
There is a horrifying naivete from the foaming at the mouth right wing. Those who want personal freedom, but only if people conform to their societal expectations and demands.7 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »That's the price of handling it in DC instead of the local community. If the money had to come from your neighbors/community, the people actually providing the money would have a good idea of someone was really down on their luck or making assistance their vocation.
Equally it makes it much easier to deny support to those whose eyes are too close together, or have a lifestyle that people disapprove of. There is a lot of value in having this kind of thing managed by a dispassionate system.
Also, there are often poor communities where a large part of the population there needs support.
I wouldn't disagree. In my later post I've noted that in the UK many of the areas where we have systemic poverty are subject to community poverty; poor educational attainment, higher levels of abortion, high levels of public health issues, frequently a skewed demographic where potential earners move away from the area.
I know from my own experience, having grown up in one of those areas there is nothing that would encourage me to go back. School friends who never managed to break out are now in a situation where they're never going to.
There is a horrifying naivete from the foaming at the mouth right wing. Those who want personal freedom, but only if people conform to their societal expectations and demands.
But isn't that what personal freedom is?
Many want personal freedom, for themselves, but expect others to give up the freedom to choose how they will help, how much, and so on.
You don't get personal freedom by taking it away from one and giving it to another.
Christians are not very Christian and Liberals are not really liberals. One is right authoritarian, you must do things my way for the greater good. The other is left authoritarian, you must do things my way for the greater good.
Liberal means that people have the freedom to decide. It doesn't mean we are going to create a large government apparatus, make people "give" to it and pat ourselves on the back saying we are liberal.
The so-called liberals are no less hypocritical than the so-called followers of Christ.4 -
tbright1965 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »That's the price of handling it in DC instead of the local community. If the money had to come from your neighbors/community, the people actually providing the money would have a good idea of someone was really down on their luck or making assistance their vocation.
Equally it makes it much easier to deny support to those whose eyes are too close together, or have a lifestyle that people disapprove of. There is a lot of value in having this kind of thing managed by a dispassionate system.
Also, there are often poor communities where a large part of the population there needs support.
I wouldn't disagree. In my later post I've noted that in the UK many of the areas where we have systemic poverty are subject to community poverty; poor educational attainment, higher levels of abortion, high levels of public health issues, frequently a skewed demographic where potential earners move away from the area.
I know from my own experience, having grown up in one of those areas there is nothing that would encourage me to go back. School friends who never managed to break out are now in a situation where they're never going to.
There is a horrifying naivete from the foaming at the mouth right wing. Those who want personal freedom, but only if people conform to their societal expectations and demands.
But isn't that what personal freedom is?
Many want personal freedom, for themselves, but expect others to give up the freedom to choose how they will help, how much, and so on.
You don't get personal freedom by taking it away from one and giving it to another.
Christians are not very Christian and Liberals are not really liberals. One is right authoritarian, you must do things my way for the greater good. The other is left authoritarian, you must do things my way for the greater good.
Liberal means that people have the freedom to decide. It doesn't mean we are going to create a large government apparatus, make people "give" to it and pat ourselves on the back saying we are liberal.
The so-called liberals are no less hypocritical than the so-called followers of Christ.
Is there any justification for social safety net programs that passes your hypocritical test? Or is only private funding for things like food assistance, health care, housing for the needing, etc acceptable to you?2 -
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.
Do you have any idea what percentage of adults receiving SNAP already have jobs? HINT: the majority.
Do you know what kinds of programs make the greatest difference for individuals and for local economies? HINT: they involve choice2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »That's the price of handling it in DC instead of the local community. If the money had to come from your neighbors/community, the people actually providing the money would have a good idea of someone was really down on their luck or making assistance their vocation.
Equally it makes it much easier to deny support to those whose eyes are too close together, or have a lifestyle that people disapprove of. There is a lot of value in having this kind of thing managed by a dispassionate system.
Also, there are often poor communities where a large part of the population there needs support.
I wouldn't disagree. In my later post I've noted that in the UK many of the areas where we have systemic poverty are subject to community poverty; poor educational attainment, higher levels of abortion, high levels of public health issues, frequently a skewed demographic where potential earners move away from the area.
I know from my own experience, having grown up in one of those areas there is nothing that would encourage me to go back. School friends who never managed to break out are now in a situation where they're never going to.
There is a horrifying naivete from the foaming at the mouth right wing. Those who want personal freedom, but only if people conform to their societal expectations and demands.
But isn't that what personal freedom is?
Many want personal freedom, for themselves, but expect others to give up the freedom to choose how they will help, how much, and so on.
You don't get personal freedom by taking it away from one and giving it to another.
Christians are not very Christian and Liberals are not really liberals. One is right authoritarian, you must do things my way for the greater good. The other is left authoritarian, you must do things my way for the greater good.
Liberal means that people have the freedom to decide. It doesn't mean we are going to create a large government apparatus, make people "give" to it and pat ourselves on the back saying we are liberal.
The so-called liberals are no less hypocritical than the so-called followers of Christ.
Is there any justification for social safety net programs that passes your hypocritical test? Or is only private funding for things like food assistance, health care, housing for the needing, etc acceptable to you?
People are free to voluntarily fund such programs per their personal values.
(So called) liberals should not be able to impose their values on others any more than (so called) Christians should be able to impose their values on others.
I have nothing against programs, as long as they are funded with money freely given by others. That is the only liberal way to do it. Passing laws to force others to "give" isn't liberal, it's authoritarian.
Just because I'm against GOVERNMENT doing it doesn't mean I'm against it.
If you want government to do it, then start writing them checks. But don't just blanket tax everyone and suggest that your authoritarian bent is for the greater good.
You should be no more worried about what some conservative may or may not support or how they may or may not donate than should any conservative be concerned about who may be sleeping with whom and their marital status.
In a free society, NEITHER should be allowed to impose their vision of the greater good on others.
So no, there is no acceptable level of imposing values on a free citizenry beyond laws that prevent one from causing harm to another.
I.E. being a billionaire because you invented a better mousetrap and sold it doesn't cause harm. Stealing a billion dollars causes harm.
Owning a firearm doesn't cause harm. Shooting someone with that firearm causes harm.
Our rights end at the nose of another. I can't punch you because I think differently. You cannot demand I be taxed because you think people should provide help to another. Both cause harm or limit the freedom of choice.
People should always be free to donate. They should never be compelled to fund another's vision of the greater good. You can ask, individually. But 300 million people voting to take from the billionaires isn't asking. It's mob rule. It's the tyranny of the majority.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions