U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-19-2019, 08:24 AM
 
37,656 posts, read 14,620,386 times
Reputation: 23896

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
A couple of reasons. It's bizarre to treat adults like children and dole out food to them based on what someone "thinks" they should have, and the cost to grocery stores of tagging thousands of items in their registers to make sure they can't be rung up with EBT would be so costly and time consuming that most stores would quit accepting SNAP.
Actually, it is quite easy. WalMart, etc. just code it in to their computers like they do all the other ineligible items. When the UPC code is scanned, it tells what is eligible for payment by SNAP.

For example, pet foods, beer, wine, cigarettes, vitamins, soap, paper products, grooming supplies, cosmetics, ... all will ring up as ineligible for payment with a SNAP card.

Personally, I think soda pop should be added to the list. Food Stamps are supposed to provide nutritional support. Soda pop does not fit that definition.

Neither do cookies or candy, however I understand the difficulty in drawing the line between healthy and unhealthy foods.

As to treating them like children, not sure I agree with you there. The goal is to provide nutritional assistance. If having groceries delivered helps with that, I think that is fine.

However, I don't think it is fine for Food Stamps to pay for items that do not provide any nutritional value.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-19-2019, 08:25 AM
 
5,218 posts, read 2,257,054 times
Reputation: 14549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976 View Post
She had a 54" name-brand flatscreen. I certainly didn't splurge on something like that! And NO....she should not be complaining that taxpayers need to give her more money for food while she splurges on a large-screen TV.

Stop excusing the irresponsible decisions of people just because they are poor. She should not have bought that expensive TV, and since she did, she should have kept her mouth shut about not being able to afford food for her kids.

LIberals, sheesh.
Amen. Amen. Amen.

Most young people just sell their stamps anyway. Ya ain't that hungry if you sell ya stamps on FB.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 08:28 AM
 
3,011 posts, read 545,717 times
Reputation: 1988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl_G View Post
Wait some of you are calling for the Government to Police what people buy because its SNAP benefits. You guys are playing with fire because that is more than a slippery slope, its a land slide. By that logic I could also demand:

1. Those receiving Social Security benefits should have food monitored as to ensure its not wasted on junk food, "unhealthy" food (who decides what is what, is beef good or bad? who's opinion do you take)

2. Medicare recipients should have their food purchases monitored and rejected if deems bad for the person's "health". No beer, steak, chips, sodas, white flour as those can cause high cholesterol therefore increasing the Tax payers bill to cover your healthcare


3. VA Veterans should also be monitored for poor food purchases. Veterans also have special consideration like higher rates of Mental Health issues, therefore items like beer, wine, and tobacco should be banned as they can alter mental judgement.

3. Woah there your Mom is on Medicaid to pay for her nursing home and you just bought a new car. You need to return it and use that money for the nursing home. Tax payers are not responsible for your family, you are.

Some of you are playing with fire and some of you are not being genuine. You cannot complain about government intrusion and think monitoring grocery purchases w/ government officials would be good policy.
Your #3 is "out there," but I DO object to wealthy people (say, investments of $1 million) who transfer money to a trust so they can they get Medicaid (taxpayers) to pay their nursing home bills - and then pass the entire $1 million to their kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 08:32 AM
 
3,011 posts, read 545,717 times
Reputation: 1988
Quote:
Originally Posted by LLCNYC View Post
Amen. Amen. Amen.

Most young people just sell their stamps anyway. Ya ain't that hungry if you sell ya stamps on FB.
And that's an example of food stamps being fungible. Sell enough of them over a few months, and you "earn" enough for a TV. And then complain that taxpayers don't give you enough in food stamps, and your children are hungry,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 08:34 AM
 
26,299 posts, read 17,165,453 times
Reputation: 10273
Quote:
Originally Posted by LLCNYC View Post
Amen. Amen. Amen.

Most young people just sell their stamps anyway. Ya ain't that hungry if you sell ya stamps on FB.
Do you have a link to which young people are selling their SNAP benefits? If it is a kid, the mom or dad has the issued card so how are the kids selling their family's benefit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 08:35 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
30,870 posts, read 13,351,166 times
Reputation: 21972
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis View Post
I think that how our tax dollars are spent IS our business.

(Not referring to anything anyone buys with their own earned money, of course, but just to what tax money goes for.)
This whole thing about how "we" have a right to control how our tax dollars are spent always ends up being about benefits that the poor receive. It seems that our Calvinist instincts kick in and we want to make sure that the poor never are truly comfortable, and that they always suffer some level of discomfort because after all...they are poor and we need to make sure that they never forget that poverty is always the result of some personal failure or weakness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 08:35 AM
 
Location: Florida
5,665 posts, read 3,622,409 times
Reputation: 10608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976 View Post
I knew a leftist would say this.

Of course it's our money. Any money they spend on online delivery is less they have available for food purchases, which we are subsidizing. Money is fungible.

(Reminds me of an interview I read in the WaPo in which the welfare recipient was complaining that she doesn't get sufficient food stamps to feed her kids well. The interviewer pointed to the big flat-screen TV and asked her how she could afford that, and she snapped, "don't tell me how to spend MY money.")
Well you're using "my money" every time you go to the library or drive on a public road or send your child to school. Maybe I don't like where you're driving to. Or what books you take out. Or maybe, since I homeschool, I don't want to pay for your child to go to public school. I bet you spend money on all sorts of garbage I don't approve of. Submit your invoices so we can all decide what you should be putting "our" money toward instead.

As for the interview, it sounds a lot like this satire piece that made the rounds in conservative circles. My octogenarian grandfather regularly sends me this type of stuff. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pu...sing-grousing/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 08:38 AM
 
6,308 posts, read 1,236,973 times
Reputation: 16097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976 View Post
First, thank you for the rep points. I've been impressed with your posts, too, as you come across and quite reasonable and thoughtful.

What "entitlement attitudes" do you speak of? I often hear liberals try to draw a parallel between Medicare/SS and the subsidized programs for the poor, when in truth responsible working adults pay into these "old-age" programs for 45 years. They are very different from a young woman with children, who never worked, and gets food, subsidizing housing, health care, etc., etc.
To answer your question -- and. of course, this only applies to some conservatives -- I am talking about the fact that many wealthy conservatives (and liberals, too) don't pay any income taxes or very little in income taxes, and they insist that they are entitled to the tax breaks. It is very difficult for me to know how some of these people can begrudge many social programs for the disadvantaged (such as SNAP) when they regularly have very expensive bottles of wine with dinner, closets full of designer clothes, vacation homes, etc. -- when much of the time (although certainly not always) such wealth is inherited and was not earned.

My point is that I think it is wrong to make sweeping generalizations about any particular "class" of people. Some people are fortunate, and some are not. Some people are wealthy through hard work, but many are not. Some people are "on welfare" because they were lazy and/or made poor choices in life, but this does not apply to all people who have SNAP. (I do know that you know this.)

Btw, I found the following article very interesting, to say the least.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-taxes/577798/

From the above link (my italics and bold): "Corporations and the wealthy are the biggest beneficiaries of the IRS’s decay. Most Americans’ interaction with the IRS is largely automated. But it takes specialized, well-trained personnel to audit a business or a billionaire or to unravel a tax scheme—and those employees are leaving in droves and taking their expertise with them. For the country’s largest corporations, the danger of being hit with a billion-dollar tax bill has greatly diminished. For the rich, who research shows evade taxes the most, the IRS has become less and less of a force to be feared."

Last edited by katharsis; 04-19-2019 at 08:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,307 posts, read 59,491,616 times
Reputation: 53785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976 View Post
What about able-bodied adults who are just being lazy? Why should they spend our money this way when I myself wouldn't?
They're not spending "our" money; they're spending their money. The majority of SNAP recipients work. Please educate yourself before posting on this topic again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis View Post
If an elderly and/or disabled person can walk but doesn't drive, and the grocery store is less than a mile or two away, it forces him or her to at least get some exercise. If the necessity of physically shopping for groceries is taken away, I think it would just encourage the person to be even more shut in and possibly 'lazy' then s/he might already be.
So you think my 85-year-old mom, if she couldn't drive, should walk a mile and a half to the nearest grocery store, just because she is capable of walking? Nevermind walking home from the store with bsgs of groceries ...

There are many adjectives to described attitudes like this heartless, naive, ignorant, unaware, rude ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976 View Post
LIberals need to lose the attitude that welfare recipients are entitled to do whatever they want with money they get from other people.
Yet you're entitled to tell people how to live their lives? How typically hypocritical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Just one more step on the way to this...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976 View Post
I think we should go back to calling it "relief." It implies it's a temporary handout, and carries a slight amount of embarrassment for not being able to support oneself. It would help eliminate this haughty entitlement attitude liberals have.
So now it's not bad enough to be poor, you have to be shamed for it as well?

Good Lord .. What is wrong with people?

Anyone who is older than 10 knows disincentives don't work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
30,870 posts, read 13,351,166 times
Reputation: 21972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976 View Post
Your #3 is "out there," but I DO object to wealthy people (say, investments of $1 million) who transfer money to a trust so they can they get Medicaid (taxpayers) to pay their nursing home bills - and then pass the entire $1 million to their kids.
No dear, it's not "out there". States pay much of the burden of the elderly on medicaid who spend years or decades in nursing homes. Filial responsibility laws already exist in many states but are rarely enforced, but just wait and see what happens if the Feds significantly cut medicaid spending, states would go bankrupt if they had to foot the entire bill so their only recourse will be to go after family members.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top