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.
I've heard it suggested that the above-named classes of shops not be allowed to accept SNAP cards, but as long as America continues to have the problem of 'food deserts' (areas where no larger chain grocery store exists), this simply isn't workable.
The food deserts exist because its not profitable to operate in the area. Mostly because they are constantly stolen from.
Quote:
I also find it a bit alarming to read comments about barring the use of SNAP monies for the purchase of 'junk food' of any kind. Not only is it shocking for the attitude it reflects toward the poor, but the nutritional value of a Snickers bar is higher than that of many foods marketed as proper meal items. Where would one draw the line?
The point of limiting certain foods is a simple one: it shouldn't be pleasant to be on benefits. People should get enough to keep them alive and healthy, but not enough to enjoy what they receive. That will help motivate them to improve so that they can buy the luxury foods for themselves.
The food deserts exist because its not profitable to operate in the area. Mostly because they are constantly stolen from.
The point of limiting certain foods is a simple one: it shouldn't be pleasant to be on benefits. People should get enough to keep them alive and healthy, but not enough to enjoy what they receive. That will help motivate them to improve so that they can buy the luxury foods for themselves.
How do you suggest most of these people "improve". Many are elderly or disabled, they are not going to be able to earn money. Many are working poor with children. Are you going to provide a college education, job training, free childcare, transportation for them to improve themselves. Then are you going to guarantee employment with a livable wage?
What about people who suddenly take on children of family or foster families. Should they just suck it up, lose their home, car, go hungry, have life be even more unpleasant, or does it kill you that the gov. provides some monetary assistance to help provide for kids that would otherwise be in the system (which costs a lot more).
I volunteered at a Denver area food bank for over a year, and I would say that only about 5% of our clientele needed the food because of bad luck that could happen to anyone. I did feel compassion for those people, but not for those who seemed to have a major case of entitlement. I quit after I realized that although about 95% of our clientele said that they did not have enough money to feed their kids, they did have enough money for cigarettes, elaborate manicures, and/or expensive sports apparel.
I do believe in helping people, but I don't believe in encouraging people to stay poor when they are ABLE to work and earn enough to support themselves without any kind of charity. I am also against law-breaking in ANY form.
P.S. However, I do not blame children for the mistakes of their parents, and I would never begrudge giving food to children under the age of 16 or so. (At 16, they can get at least a part-time job -- and btw, I had part-time jobs all through high school and a full-time summer job.)
How do you suggest most of these people "improve". Many are elderly or disabled, they are not going to be able to earn money. Many are working poor with children. Are you going to provide a college education, job training, free childcare, transportation for them to improve themselves. Then are you going to guarantee employment with a livable wage?
What about people who suddenly take on children of family or foster families. Should they just suck it up, lose their home, car, go hungry, have life be even more unpleasant, or does it kill you that the gov. provides some monetary assistance to help provide for kids that would otherwise be in the system (which costs a lot more).
"Monetary assistance" is not what we complain about. Most of us support it.
As for "many are working poor with children", they have my sympathy and temporary support. But many more are non-working with too many children. If you're on public assistance, you should have brains enough to know not to produce more mouths for the taxpayer to feed, clothe and shelter. This is also what I consider abuse of the system. What the solution is, however, I haven't a clue. You can't fix stupid!
The point of limiting certain foods is a simple one: it shouldn't be pleasant to be on benefits. People should get enough to keep them alive and healthy, but not enough to enjoy what they receive. That will help motivate them to improve so that they can buy the luxury foods for themselves.
This pretty much sums it up. No matter how many facts are provided about low fraud rates, recipients working jobs, the economy or whatever, many people are obsessed with punishing poor people for the crime of being poor. All these poor people struggling to get by, and it turns out all they needed was someone to tell them to stop being poor.
This pretty much sums it up. No matter how many facts are provided about low fraud rates, recipients working jobs, the economy or whatever, many people are obsessed with punishing poor people for the crime of being poor. All these poor people struggling to get by, and it turns out all they needed was someone to tell them to stop being poor.
Not wanting to make government benefits is "punishing the poor"? Why should society pay for people to purchase non-essential goods that the working poor, who have the dignity and self-worth not to go on benefits, can't afford?
It's common sense that the more pleasant and convenient the government makes benefits, the less motivated people will be to get off of benefits. However, what I am reading from some people on this thread is that benefit programs should not include any sort of component that encourages people to be self-reliant.
But enough of all that. What would be so wrong and inhumane about shipping people basic rations of generic bread, milk, cheese, peanut butter, beans and canned fruits/vegatables instead of giving them a card?
This pretty much sums it up. No matter how many facts are provided about low fraud rates, recipients working jobs, the economy or whatever, many people are obsessed with punishing poor people for the crime of being poor. All these poor people struggling to get by, and it turns out all they needed was someone to tell them to stop being poor.
I think you might be missing the point about WarBeagle's post about giving poor people basic food and not "luxury" food.
I think this could be likened to the fact that when I was a young teen, my parents provided me with basic (and even, many times, secondhand) clothes, but if I wanted a pair of $30 designer jeans (equivalent to about $100 today), then I knew that I had to earn the money to buy them myself. I did not feel that I was being punished, but I just knew that if I wanted something beyond what my parents were willing to give to me, then I was on my own.
Did I resent that I had to work for what I wanted when many of my friends had almost everything they wanted just given to them? Yes, sure, sometimes -- but it certainly taught me a lot about work ethics, responsibility, and setting priorities.
Last edited by katharsis; 01-21-2016 at 03:55 PM..
The welfare system is too easily scammed. So, why do we continue to use it.
I have been saying that for a long time. Why do we continue to use it. It has failed to help anyone get off welfare. We should have a deadline where people work to get off if it. Instead of giving away food why not teach these people how to make money so they can buy their own food.
The food deserts exist because its not profitable to operate in the area. Mostly because they are constantly stolen from.
No. Food deserts exist because small stores aren't as profitable as big ones of the same chain, and many places have too small a population or a population too poor to spend a lot on food. That's NOT just inner city neighborhoods. That's rural areas and small towns, too, and that has nothing to do with income. I lived in a small town where the only place to buy food was a glorified convenience store that sold food, contained a pizza/sub shop, a sporting good outlet, and a video store -- with pump your own gas and kerosene pumps outside.
My current neighborhood is a food desert, too, because there's no supermarket/grocery store within walking distance, just a Seven Eleven and a mom-and-pop. If you don't have a car, you are screwed over unless you can get a ride from someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle
The point of limiting certain foods is a simple one: it shouldn't be pleasant to be on benefits. People should get enough to keep them alive and healthy, but not enough to enjoy what they receive. That will help motivate them to improve so that they can buy the luxury foods for themselves.
Why not make them wear big red Ws on their coats/sweaters/shirts so that the entire world would know of their terrible sin of being poor? Shame seldom works to make someone "improve". Mostly it makes them hateful.
How about weekly food boxes delivered? Every household is given a free cookbook and enough ingredients to feed the members of their household. The way we have it set up now a person could spend all their EBT funds on cookies if they wanted to. Hey, it's a free country BUT we are also paying for their health care. Why do we let our dependents destroy their health with poor food choices? If people want freedom of choice they need to support themselves; when the taxpayer is supporting you there should be no choice.
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.
