Exchange Our Food Stamp Program for Welfare Stores? (states, 2014, percent)
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.
Yes, children don't choose their parents, but if you teach the children of poor parents that they are doomed to and deserve a life of handouts, that's what they will do. If you teach the children of poor parents that they can escape poverty with character, hard work, and grit, then that's what they will do.
Stop underestimating the children of poor parents. They can be great if you let them.
It's also a product of the schools and neighborhoods they live in. If they are poor but live in better neighborhoods that may have better schools or despite bad neighborhoods they can go to better schools, they SHOULD be fine. It's no where near a given, but it is a better chance. These typically happen this way. However it is not absolutes at all.
Also, if you are not knowledgable enough, then educate yourself. That's what I did, and why I have the opinions I do. Because I am in possession of the facts, and am not spouting what some politician or media outlet told me to think.
I don't think you're knowledgable enough either...like I said, unless you know every number in every state and federal budget, you can't say where it's all going. It doesn't change my opinion though. I never said I was an economist and neither are you. My opinions are based largely on my experiences and what I have seen in 18 years working in health and long term care, much of it in poor areas. I see every day the costs associated with advanced illness among the poor, my opinion remains it is cheaper to prevent disease than cure it or treat it.
What exactly are you advocating? Giving up on the poor, shrugging our shoulders, and shoving them out of the country? Decide that we won't permit it anymore and just get rid of it? Throw them all in jail? That's horrible.
The poor in this country are downright rich compared to the poor centuries ago. We have made great progress. And we will continue to do so. Goodness. Admit failure? Not on your life.
I'm advocating we stop victim-blaming and try helping the poor. And no, food stamps aren't helping the poor. If we wanted to help, we'd give them money. Instead we give them narrowly-restricted aid because we think they're too stupid to feed themselves if we just give them cash.
And while we've made progress compared to a century ago, our welfare system has mainly gotten worse in the last couple decades, thanks to conservative political pressure to transfer money from the poor to the rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandon
So does mine. But when people are insisting that Welfare Queens don't exist, I think pointing out observations from those of us who worked the front lines and observed the Welfaeries in their native habitat is relevant.
It's hard to take you seriously when you use terms like "messy piggish buggers" and "native habitat" unironically.
Last edited by FrankMiller; 02-05-2016 at 07:03 AM..
I'm advocating we stop victim-blaming and try helping the poor. And no, food stamps aren't helping the poor. If we wanted to help, we'd give them money. Instead we give them narrowly-restricted aid because we think they're too stupid to feed themselves if we just give them cash.
And while we've made progress compared to a century ago, our welfare system has mainly gotten worse in the last couple decades, thanks to conservative political pressure to transfer money from the poor to the rich.
It's hard to take you seriously when you use terms like "messy piggish buggers" and "native habitat" unironically.
I think food stamps is fine as is. The abuse is because they don't see The importance of food over alcohol and cigarettes. The only change I'd make is produce should be bought over junk food.
Do you understand where they are starting from? Often they grow up malnourished from the beginning, abused and born to teenage moms, often exposed to drugs and alcohol even in the womb, exposed to lead and mold and other toxic substances during their childhoods...these kids are already at a disadvantage by the time they start kindergarten, and many face life and death danger just to get to school and back...but they are equally capable of getting out of poverty as someone who was born in a middle class suburb? Sorry, again I call BS. Of course some kids can do this, but every sociological study ever done on class status concludes it is much harder and rarer to move up a social class and most people rich or poor end up being similar financially to those they are surrounded by.
For a kid in poverty to move up to middle class is just as much a climb as it is for someone average middle class to join the 1%.
Are you saying that all poor kids are malnourished, abused crackbabies suffering from FAS growing up in the gang infested hood? And that the solution to this problem, is to give their parents more free money?
I mean, yes, I understand that some poor kids grow up in these conditions, certainly not all of them. But I'm 100% sure that for the kids in those particular conditions, if you give THEIR parents free money, it will not benefit their kids. Not one iota.
But for a kid who is just poor, not malnourished, not a crackbaby, not suffering from FAS, not living in a gang infested hood, but is actually a regular old kid with not enough money living in a tiny apartment with a single mom who works two minimum wage jobs - THAT kid you can teach character, hard work and grit. That kid sees it every day. That kid's mom works her a** off everyday to try and give her kid a better life, and that kid SEES it. And if, when that kid gets to school and gets breakfast, if his head is then stuffed full of character, hard work, and grit, then that kid is going to live his momma's dreams and make his momma happy.
If, instead, he's taught that his momma's work means nothing, he'll never get anywhere on his own cause his mama ain't rich, but he deserves all the pleasures of life no matter what, just take it from everyone else... I just... that's heartbreaking. This woman works herself to the bone all day every day and you just come in and tell her kid it's pointless and undo all of her work in 2 minutes. You mean well, I'm sure, but your narrative can destroy people's lives.
I still maintain it costs more in the end to trim upfront. Healthy people cost less to take care of over their lifetimes than diseased people.
I believe that was probably the argument back in the 1930s when the food stamp program was created. Health care costs have only gone up in the intervening 85 years. The logic sounds good, but it isn't working.
Yes, children don't choose their parents, but if you teach the children of poor parents that they are doomed to and deserve a life of handouts, that's what they will do. If you teach the children of poor parents that they can escape poverty with character, hard work, and grit, then that's what they will do.
Stop underestimating the children of poor parents. They can be great if you let them.
Yes, teach them instead that they're not good enough to eat well, be warm or safe. Teach them that their parents can't feed them (with a nice discreet cash payment), but they are only good enough to receieve a supervised pre prepared meal at school so their untrustworthy, incapable parents won't look capable.
I don't think you're knowledgable enough either...like I said, unless you know every number in every state and federal budget, you can't say where it's all going. It doesn't change my opinion though. I never said I was an economist and neither are you. My opinions are based largely on my experiences and what I have seen in 18 years working in health and long term care, much of it in poor areas. I see every day the costs associated with advanced illness among the poor, my opinion remains it is cheaper to prevent disease than cure it or treat it.
I review the high level federal budget and spending figures on a fairly regular basis. It's on the internet. You can find it with google and read it. There's a bunch of different sites that present the data in graphs too. You don't have to be an economist to get the gist of it, it's not very complicated. You just have to be interested in finding out the truth.
I agree that it is cheaper to prevent disease than cure it or treat it. I disagree that expanding the food stamp program will make any measurable progress in preventing disease.
It's also a product of the schools and neighborhoods they live in. If they are poor but live in better neighborhoods that may have better schools or despite bad neighborhoods they can go to better schools, they SHOULD be fine. It's no where near a given, but it is a better chance. These typically happen this way. However it is not absolutes at all.
Unfortunately, the chances aren't improved by much. Even if you do put a poor kid from a dysfunctional family in a great school, in many cases they will still suffer from lack of parental involvement and outside stresses imposed by them from the dysfunctional, home environment. The wealthier kids don't have to deal with the the same kinds of stress.
Additionally, once you start introducing poor kids to wealthier, high-performing schools, word quickly gets out and the school develops a "bad" reputation, due to the often poor performance of the more disadvantaged students, which brings down the overall test scores.
Up here in Westchester County, NY where I live, people are obsessed with the concept of having the best schools possible. The choice of schools is one of the main reasons people buy a house in a certain town or village, and several very nice towns/schools have developed a so-called bad reputation due to factors like increased diversity and lower test scores (incorporation of students from broken homes).
It's a tough thing to beat, especially when you have rich families literally running the other direction to pull their kids (and funding) out of the integrated schools. There will always be an inherent advantage of having wealthier parents who are involved in the kids' lives who have the finances and ability to select the best education and ensure their kids are only exposed to other similarly privileged peers.
I'm advocating we stop victim-blaming and try helping the poor. And no, food stamps aren't helping the poor. If we wanted to help, we'd give them money. Instead we give them narrowly-restricted aid because we think they're too stupid to feed themselves if we just give them cash.
This is where you are 100% wrong. Giving them unrestricted money doesn't help in the slightest.
Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish, he eats for a lifetime.
Say you have an 25 year old child living in your basement, who you've been supporting since high school, and your kid hasn't gone out and done anything with themselves yet because you've been giving them food, money, clothes, and a roof over their head. They just live in your basement and play video games. How do you help them? Give them more money? And that will get them out of your basement and self sufficient? No. I don't think so.
Kick them out, cut them off completely, tell them the only thing you will pay for is school, if they go and make good grades. Everything else they have to get their own job and pay for themselves. That's how you help, right? Exactly.
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.
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.
