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, and you better be glad you live in the US in the 21st century. Any other time and place in the world, and the person with poor health, a kid or two, a disabled spouse, or over 55, is left to starve and die. Ancient Rome? Starve and die. Victorian England? Starve and die. Living naturally, off the land, in tune with nature? Starve and die.
Anyone who complains they don't get free "comfort food" when they "want", is a sniveling whiner. A human sniveling whiner, sure.
Isn't this an argument in favor of a more comprehensive and effective food assistance program? If, in fact, modern society is moving away from Victorian, Oliver Twist-esque conditions for the poor, doesn't that involve some form of assistance, either on the private or public level?
The fact that the United States is an incredibly wealthy, industrialized nation seems to lend itself to the argument that there should be a greater burden on the society to address issues like hunger and poverty. People still do starve and die in 2016 America, which seems wholly unnecessary for a society as wealthy and otherwise advanced as ours. When weighing the potential of SNAP fraud against the potential that *not* providing programs like SNAP can (and will) lead to actual starvation, which line of reasoning should prevail? Improve the systems, yes, but prioritize it and address it while sparing the dignity of those who utilize it.
I did volunteer work with poor women in Nevada. A woman with two kids received $383 in cash and $500 in SNAP benefits. A weekly motel room costs $500-$600 a month, so she can either sleep on the street with her kids, sofa surf, or she can sell enough food stamps to come up with rent money. Nothing nefarious about it. And the going rate in Nevada is 50 cents on the dollar for food stamps. So to pay $125 a week for a motel room she had to sell $234 in food benefits.
As I have said before, if you are so damn concerned about your $13 not going to help people you consider worthy, I will write you a damn check.
I'd like my check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladlensky
People still do starve and die in 2016 America, which seems wholly unnecessary for a society as wealthy and otherwise advanced as ours.
I call BS on that. I want links to stories about working-age adults starving to death in America. I want links to pictures of skeletal people with swollen bellies in America. And not swollen bellies because they eat too much junk food, but swollen bellies because they are actually starving.
Insomuch as people do starve to death in the US, it's either voluntary or due to parental neglect or neglect of the elderly.
Also, I think -- please correct me if I am wrong here -- that at least in some states, cash can be withdrawn from EBT cards, and as we all know, cash can be used for almost anything. In my opinion, using cash that is meant for essentials for things like cigarettes is at least a form of fraud. However, $10.00 for a pack of cigarettes here or a DVD there is hardly worthy of a news bulletin -- but just because there is no proof of this, just hearsay or anecdotal evidence, does not necessarily mean that it is not true.
First of all, what difference does it make if they spend food stamps on food and a couple bucks from mowing a lawn on cigarettes, or vice versa?
Secondly, assuming someone only had enough money to afford the essentials, including food stamps and whatever cash they may have, is it the government's problem that they spend it frivolously? You're theorizing that this person has only enough money to afford barely enough tasteless gruel to survive, and they're blowing it on fancy cereal or DVDs... and then what? Are these people dropping dead for lack of food?
Wall Street fraud is fraud because it's about billionaires stealing money from the rest of the country. Food stamp fraud is fraud because food stamp rules are pointlessly nanny-state restrictive, solely to punish poor people for being poor. "Hey I care about both types of fraud" isn't, in my opinion, an excuse. Someone who cheats means-testing to get food stamps when they make $40k per year is a legitimate food stamp *********, a mother who buys her kid a DVD is not.
That was a very informative article, so allow me to quote a portion of it (my italics and bold): "Every year the Department of Agriculture publishes data about where food stamp benefits (officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) are being spent. The categories range from grocery stores and super stores to convenience stores and farmers markets. Also on the list, surprisingly, are military commissaries — those stores on military bases that sell groceries just above cost to active duty and retired military personnel and their families, as well as those in the reserves and National Guard. [snip] The USDA estimated that between 2,000 and 22,000 active-duty military members used food stamps in 2012, the latest data available. [snip]The USDA estimates that in 2012, more than 1.5 million veterans used food stamps, or about 7 percent of all veterans."
So, to emphasize, about 12,000 active military personnel and/or their families used food stamps, but about 1.5 million veterans did. So, if MOST active military personnel can feed themselves and their families without additional assistance, what is the reason that 1-2% of them can't? Do they have too many kids for their income, is it simply poor financial management and/or poor decision making, or what?
However, the fact that 1.5 million veterans are on food stamps is more difficult for me to understand. Is it because many of them just cannot find jobs? Or are most of these veterans senior citizens who simply do not have enough retirement income to meet their needs?
Whatever the explanation, I find the information contained in the article to be very sad indeed.
However, the fact that 1.5 million veterans are on food stamps is more difficult for me to understand. Is it because many of them just cannot find jobs? Or are most of these veterans senior citizens who simply do not have enough retirement income to meet their needs?
Whatever the explanation, I find the information contained in the article to be very sad indeed.
Yes. And if you are willing to extend your empathy to millions of people who didn't or couldn't join the military, you'll understand why I'm sad.
Isn't this an argument in favor of a more comprehensive and effective food assistance program? If, in fact, modern society is moving away from Victorian, Oliver Twist-esque conditions for the poor, doesn't that involve some form of assistance, either on the private or public level?
No, this is an argument for quit whining and face facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladlensky
The fact that the United States is an incredibly wealthy, industrialized nation seems to lend itself to the argument that there should be a greater burden on the society to address issues like hunger and poverty. People still do starve and die in 2016 America, which seems wholly unnecessary for a society as wealthy and otherwise advanced as ours. When weighing the potential of SNAP fraud against the potential that *not* providing programs like SNAP can (and will) lead to actual starvation, which line of reasoning should prevail? Improve the systems, yes, but prioritize it and address it while sparing the dignity of those who utilize it.
I posted before that SNAP fraud is basically chump change and there are bigger things to worry about, like Medicare and Medicaid. But anyways.
I am for a social safety net, but I have also looked at the actual numbers and know for a fact that unless we start cutting our social safety spending now, 20 years from now we will not be able to afford any social safety net whatsoever. So when you talk about "sparing the dignity" of those who are using the safety net now, I know that what you are ACTUALLY saying is that the sparing DIGNITY of the poor now is WORTH letting them STARVE 20 years from now.
You are selling out your kids, letting them starve and die, so that you can have doritos, coke, and "dignity" today.
And I DISAGREE with that. The poor today should take what they absolutely need to survive, and NOTHING ELSE, so that 20 years from now their kids will be able to do the same.
And the United States is not wealthy. Wealth is defined by assets minus liabilities. We're not even in the black. Are you joking? We're beyond dead broke lol.
Sigh. For the 8 millionth time:
1. Food Stamps are not Welfare. Welfare (now called TANF) is practically non-existent and nearly impossible to get unless someone in the household is severely disabled and cannot work.
2. 80-90% (depending on what study you look at) of Food Stamp recipients are working.
3. You need to ask yourself why you think people who are poor need to be punished and humiliated for being poor. The larger problem is with this attitude.
Unfortunately there posters here who would rather fantasize about this idiotic idea of 'welfare stores' because it fits their narrative of SNAP recipients being disgusting leeches who can't be trusted. And because threads like this give some of them yet another opportunity to let us all know how successful they are and how these welfare leeches just don't try hard enough, or plan well enough for if they did, they could be just like they are.
Food stamp fraud is fraud because food stamp rules are pointlessly nanny-state restrictive, solely to punish poor people for being poor.
Food stamp rules are not there to punish people for being poor. They are there to reduce the amount of money used, because money is a limited resource and does not grow on trees. Duh.
First of all, what difference does it make if they spend food stamps on food and a couple bucks from mowing a lawn on cigarettes, or vice versa?
Secondly, assuming someone only had enough money to afford the essentials, including food stamps and whatever cash they may have, is it the government's problem that they spend it frivolously? You're theorizing that this person has only enough money to afford barely enough tasteless gruel to survive, and they're blowing it on fancy cereal or DVDs... and then what? Are these people dropping dead for lack of food?
Wall Street fraud is fraud because it's about billionaires stealing money from the rest of the country. Food stamp fraud is fraud because food stamp rules are pointlessly nanny-state restrictive, solely to punish poor people for being poor. "Hey I care about both types of fraud" isn't, in my opinion, an excuse. Someone who cheats means-testing to get food stamps when they make $40k per year is a legitimate food stamp *********, a mother who buys her kid a DVD is not.
Edit: Why the heck is "fraud-ster" censored?
First of all, perhaps the government doesn't care about what people do with EBT cash withdrawals, but I do, and that is my right. If it is my money, then I feel that I have a right to have an opinion as to how it is spent, and I don't like it when my money that is supposedly going to HELP someone to a better life is being used frivolously. And, news flash -- money that is taken from my pocket IS hurting me unless it benefits me or my family in some way. (Again, to be clear, I am NOT talking about earned money from mowing lawns or whatever, but only about using cash from EBT cards for "non-essentials." I couldn't care less about what people do with money they earned unless it is used to buy something that will harm others.)
Secondly, if people on welfare are NOT dropping dead from starvation, then they obviously are getting enough food, even if it is "tasteless gruel". As someone pointed out in an earlier post, people DID die by the thousands in times past and are still dying from starvation in other countries. So, in my view, people who are not starving in this country only because of higher income taxpayers and government programs should be THANKFUL, grateful and appreciative instead of thinking they are entitled to more of the good stuff and freebies and non-essential luxuries. (But then, unlike many people today, my husband and I were raised to have a good work ethic and to provide for ourselves and our families without any kind of government assistance, except that to which we significantly and directly contributed through paycheck deductions. And, yes, I willingly admit and agree that we were fortunate to be ABLE to do that and also -- although our parents were far from perfect -- to have the upbringing we did.)
I do think that a cheater is a cheater, period, although I do agree that some cheats and lies and acts of violence are worse than others. You, of course, are free to disagree with any or all of my opinions.
Last edited by katharsis; 01-22-2016 at 10:31 AM..
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.
