City of L.A now forcing Farmer's Market vendors to accept EBT (Los Angeles: rent, insurance)

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Kaphawoman

How the hell did this thread about food stamps at the Los Angeles farmers market turn into a discussion of the GI bill and discrimination against black veterans 60 years ago?

Victimology. Get on board. Choo choo.

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Victimology. Get on board. Choo choo.

That is right and your are the lead conductor on that train!

Starting with your sob story about how your "penniless" white parents "struggled" back in the day. The cherry of top was your waxing nostalgic about a bygone era of morals and virtue that never really was. Cry us a river already......

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

The implication that black men could not use GI Bill benefits because the Bill itself was discriminatory is false.

From the previous link:

""For white men, the combination of World War II service and G. I. benefits had substantial positive effects on collegiate attainment, with a gain of about 0.3 years of college and an increase in college completion of about 5 percentage points. For black men, however, the results were decidedly different for those born in the southern states versus those born elsewhere. The combination of World War II service and the availability of G.I. benefits led to an increase in educational attainment of about 0.4 years of college for black men born outside the South, while there were few gains in collegiate attainment among black men from the South."

White men had a gain of about 0.3 years of college and Black men in the North had a gain of about 0.4 years. That means that Black men in the North had a higher gain than white men overall.

Black men in the South did not benefit from the GI Bill because there were fewer educational institutions that would accept them. There was systemic discrimination, but it was not inherent in the Bill itself. If it had been, it would have affected black men in the North, too.

There was considerable discrimination against Black men in the North during that time period, and this went from housing, education, and jobs.

I'm not a housewife whose husband throws her a few crumbs at his business. I actually have a professional background in public policy and education.

Any expert in the field of public policy, educational policy, and education will say the bill was deliberately discriminatory. They knew very well white institutions around the country were not going to accept Black GIs, and did nothing about it until the 60s. People within the field, from policy experts to economists would say the GI Bill as written in the 40s was an entitlement AIMED as white men.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Victimology. Get on board. Choo choo.

I didn't mention anyone as a victim.

I did mention the GI Bill, both PAST and PRESENT to mention how a number of people used various government programs in order to move themselves from poverty to middle or even upper class lifestyles.

I also said the hatred of anything to do with the government of some people on this forum is because they are small business owners who want an endless supply of labor desperate enough to work minimum wage jobs at their crappy small businesses.

Mind you the farmers market people themselves are not complaining about the requirement that they have to take EBT cards from now on. No one has identified themselves as a vendor from the farmer's market. Instead you have unrelated small business owners or their spouses weeping and wailing for something that has no direct connection to them.

[jm1982]

On principle I don't agree with government forcing PRIVATE business owners to paricipate in this program . It's like what's next? It might not seem like a big deal , but it is a pretty big deal . Apparently the machines , which are likely expensive will be given away for free , but we know that the taxpayers will be paying dearly .

To get an idea of the cost of these machines
"As of 2009, about 193,000 retailers take SNAP, yet only 900 of these retailers are farmers' markets, despite the fact that there are more than 5,200 markets nationwide. So why not more? Well, EBT machines are expensive for one. The machines cost about $1,000 to install, and then have continued operating costs as well as labor and training associated with their usage. "

Why Don't More Farmers' Markets Accept Food Stamps? | Serious Eats
And they might be more now since that was years ago .

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by jm1982

On principle I don't agree with government forcing PRIVATE business owners to paricipate in this program . It's like what's next? It might not seem like a big deal , but it is a pretty big deal . Apparently the machines , which are likely expensive will be given away for free , but we know that the taxpayers will be paying dearly .

To get an idea of the cost of these machines
"As of 2009, about 193,000 retailers take SNAP, yet only 900 of these retailers are farmers' markets, despite the fact that there are more than 5,200 markets nationwide. So why not more? Well, EBT machines are expensive for one. The machines cost about $1,000 to install, and then have continued operating costs as well as labor and training associated with their usage. "

Why Don't More Farmers' Markets Accept Food Stamps? | Serious Eats
And they might be more now since that was years ago .

Well then the Farmers markets are absorbing no additional costs. No wonder why they aren't complaining! This actually gives them more customers.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Yes, the Bill was not discriminatory. The institutions that refused to accept Black applicants did the discriminating. You can post until you are blue in the face, but if the Bill had been discriminatory in practice it would have affected Blacks all over the country. That did not happen. It was Blacks in the Jim Crow South who did not benefit.

The quote that you are refusing to read showed that Blacks in the North actually had slightly higher gains in education than whites did overall.

suzy - you know the old saw: "statistics lie", right? Well, statistics don't lie. People manipulate statistics to present false pictures.

You have crossed a line with your statistics. I'm not saying you've done it intentionally. I don't know. But you are speciously selecting dissimilar categories in trying to make your point. The result is the creation of a false equivalency. You are presenting a subset of one group - black Americans, from northern states (without even defining "northern states") and applying a statistic comparatively to ALL white Americans - from any region. And you exclude a subset - black Americans, from southern states (without defining the southern states either) from the comp.

As I and others have said: the way the GI Bill was written isn't the issue. It's functionality in the full American educational marketplace was not guaranteed. The result? Yes, varying results in varying regions. So? The overriding effect and carry-through of its intention was grossly compromised. It wasn't a conspiracy to limit and suppress black education - but the systemic flaws were known at the time and not addressed.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by jm1982

On principle I don't agree with government forcing PRIVATE business owners to paricipate in this program . It's like what's next?

Before you get your shorts up in a knot, why not ask yourself "what's the precedent? What IS government's role in society with regard to business practices?" Because if you bothered to ask yourself that question, you might realize that government forces businesses to do a very great number of things to comply with the general welfare of the entire community it serves. Business is not a higher institution than government. The two functions have a necessarily symbiotic relationship. Neither functions without the other. But business's role is to create and execute profitable commerce for itself. Government's role includes regulating commerce to insure benefit to society as well as the individuals engaged.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks

That is right and your are the lead conductor on that train!

Starting with your sob story about how your "penniless" white parents "struggled" back in the day. The cherry of top was your waxing nostalgic about a bygone era of morals and virtue that never really was. Cry us a river already......

You are delusional? Do you not understand that my parents were indeed penniless and in fact came with airline ticket debt? How dare you accuse me of lying. You must have an irrational hatred for white people, including those that are or were poor immigrants.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

You are delusional. Do you not understand that my parents were indeed penniless and in fact came with airline ticket debt? How dare you accuse me of lying. You must have an irrational hatred for white people, including those that are or were poor immigrants.

So now you do indeed declare yourself a victim here, by deliberately identifying yourself as the child of poor white immigrants and now you claim the other poster hates you. The poster never gave any indication of hating you, by the way. He disagreed with you politically. Learn to tell the difference between political disagreements and do not take disagreements personally. This is essential in any type of discourse.